Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Financial Management

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further plans he has for controlling resources in his Department following the report, "Financial Management in Government Departments".

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): The White Paper mentioned by my hon. Friend includes a summary of the Ministry's plans for improving the management and control of resources. Much detailed planning work is going on to put these systems into practice; in particular, volume trials of our new management accounting information system will start next week.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend say how the new systems are helping him to manage the resources of his Ministry more efficiently?

Mr. Jopling: My ministerial colleagues and I have benefited greatly from the returns made to us under the management information in MAFF system, known as MINIM. We have also benefited from discussions with officials on those returns. We have identified various areas where follow-up work needs to be done, and we shall be publishing the 1984 MINIM returns very shortly.

Farming Statistics

Mr. Gould: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers now farm fewer than 500 acres; and how this compares with 1973.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): The information is not available in the form requested. However, in June 1983 some 219,000 holdings in England and Wales of fewer than 200 hectares—494·2 acres—were recorded in the agricultural census. Comparable figures for 1973 are not available because of changes since then in the coverage of the annual census.

Mr. Gould: Have not the vast sums of taxpayers' money which have been pumped into agriculture through

the common agricultural policy driven up the price of agricultural land so much that small farmers have been squeezed out, and increasingly only wealthy individuals and institutions can afford to buy? Should not this factor feature prominently in any review of agricultural policy which might be carried out by the Ministry?

Mr. MacGregor: There are obviously many factors involved in the rise in the price of agricultural land. It is certainly not the case that increasinly only institutions and wealthy farmers can afford to farm. The amount of land in institutional hands is still, relatively speaking, very small.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the increasing costs of the common agricultural policy, and the Government's efforts have been very much directed towards getting that into better shape.

Sir Paul Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend accept that there has been a large reduction in the number of small farmers? Will he take note of the welcome statement, at long last, by the National Farmers Union that it supports smaller family farms? What will the Minister do about the problem?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that we have examined several proposals in the past, some of which he has advocated, such as control over farm size and the impact of the institutional farmers. He and I have had many exchanges on the subject. The fact that we have been concentrating our dairy farm outgoers scheme on the small farmers is a clear indication of our determination to help them and to continue to help the family farmers.

Milk Quotas

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the dairy quotas are being implemented properly in other European Economic Community countries.

Mr. Jopling: I have raised this question in the Agriculture Council, and it is clear that most member states are making strenuous efforts to ensure that the supplementary levy is properly applied. I have pressed the Commission to take the necessary action to ensure that any failures to apply the levy are dealt with.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: is my right hon. Friend aware that the milk levy system is not being implemented by most other Common Market countries? Will he press for penalties against those countries? What relief can he offer the British farmer who has cut back fully and is now seen as the fall guy of Europe?

Mr. Jopling: The Agriculture Commissioner has made it clear that most member states have the necessary national legislation in force. Considerable progress has been made in establishing the administrative procedures. I remind my hon. Friend that there is no ban on production outside quotas. Provided that member states collect the appropriate amount of levy from those responsible for the surplus, they will be complying with the supplementary levy regulations.

Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on Agriculture is going to Brussels next week to try to find out whether other member states are implementing the levy? If the Select Committee discovers that they are not implementing the levy, or not


implementing it correctly, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to abolish the implementation of the levy in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Jopling: I wish the hon. Gentleman a pleasant trip to Brussels next week. I welcome the efforts of the Select Committee in persuading the Commission to make sure that every member state implements the rules properly. With the exception of Italy, which in fact has a particular derogation until the end of the quota year, my own feeling is a good deal more optimistic than it was that other member states are implementing the rules.

Sir Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the stand that he has already taken in Europe on penalties, but will he bear in mind that the fear of those in British agriculture is justified and that there must be the most rigorous inspection and checking to see that people do not cheat, and particularly to see that next time the Irish do not get away with it?

Mr. Jopling: I thank my hon. Friend for his initial remarks, but I remind him that I have raised that issue at the last three meetings of the Council of Ministers. As I said earlier, there is no ban on production outside quotas. With a levy of up to 100 per cent. of the target price, we expect most producers to make a strenuous effort to comply with their quotas over the year as a whole. Frankly, it is an expensive business if one does not comply with one's quota.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the fact that the milk quotas have had a disastrous effect on the Welsh economy. Will he now consider establishing a proposal for Wales to have an extra quota at next year's price review and negotiations?

Mr. Jopling: If the hon. Gentleman were to look at the outgoers scheme, bearing in mind that there is a large preponderence of small farmers in his part of Wales,. I think he will agree that my intention to give preference through the scheme, to redistribute the quota particularly to smaller farmers, will be of particular benefit to farmers in both Wales and the south-west of England.

Mr. Hunter: Despite all that my right hon. Friend has just said, is he aware that dairy farmers in this country have presided over a 9 per cent. reduction in production and witnessed a £1,875 loss of income? How can we justify a policy of milk quotas to our dairy farmers if it is continually disregarded by our Common Market friends?

Mr. Jopling: The cut that British dairy farmers have to make is not 9 per cent., as my hon. Friend said, but 6·5 per cent. Within the Community I see evidence that member states are moving towards their levy quantity. The latest information that I understand the Commission has about the French dairy industry is that the French authorities expect that the current trend in milk production in France and the response from their outgoers scheme will mean that no levy will become due at the end of the year.

Miss Maynard: Can the Minister tell us how many farm workers have lost their jobs because of the imposition of quotas? Will he give further consideration to the payment of compensation to any farm worker who loses his job because of quotas?

Mr. Jopling: I have answered that question before. I have no knowledge of the number of farm workers who

may or may not have lost their jobs, but I have told the House before about the arrangements to compensate those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to small dairy farmers producing 200,000 litres and less that their quotas will be brought back to 1983 production levels?

Mr. Jopling: Our outgoers scheme has been oversubscribed in terms of applicants. We have already issued invitations to a sufficient number of applicants to reach the 2·25 per cent. of quota which will take up the £50 million that I have provided. So long as that amount of quota is made available for redistribution, I hope that the smaller dairy farmers will enjoy most of the benefits by having their quotas brought back to 1983 production patterns.

Mr. Nicholson: We all know that the quotas are not being properly implemented in other European countries, whereas in the United Kingdom they are being properly implemented. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Northern Ireland, where 5,000 dairy farmers stand to pay a levy of £5·2 million. Is the Minister aware of the serious damage that this will do to Northern Ireland, agriculture and does he regard it as fair in view of the absolute failure of the buy-out scheme in Northern Ireland which has not come up to his expectations?

Mr. Jopling: I am aware that a smaller proportion of Northern Ireland dairy farmers than we expected have applied for the outgoers scheme. Many dairy farmers throughout the Community will be liable to pay a levy, but for Northern Ireland producers who have overshot their quota the Commission recently agreed that 50 per cent. of the levy should be collected as planned at the end of the present quarter, but that the remainder would be due at the end of the 1984–85 marketing year.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What protection has our domestic market against over quota production of butter in the Republic of Ireland being dumped here?

Mr. Jopling: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a free market for dairy produce of certain types within the Community and there is a relatively free market in butter between member states.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister publish a comprehensive review of the legislative and adminstrative arrangements which other EEC countries intend to make to collect the levy so that we all know exactly what is happening? Is he aware that in almost every EEC country but our own production this year has already reached such a level that the balance of quota remaining is far less than the expected production between now and March? How can he be so sure that the levy will indeed be collected?

Mr. Jopling: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a question on this I shall do my best to answer it in the detail that he might prefer. I should point out, however, that many Community countries were reducing their milk production towards quota levels in the first months of the scheme. For instance, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg made reductions in the April to July period. As the hon. Gentleman and I well know, however, the United Kingdom reduction has been greatly accelerated due to the exceptionally dry weather which our dairy industry had to put up with in the summer.

Diary Herds

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current size of the dairy herd; how this compares with the number two years ago; and what decline has been noted in each of the other member states of the Community.

Mr. MacGregor: The provisional results of the 1984 June census show that there were 3,265,000 dairy cows in the United Kingdom herd—0·5 per cent. more than in June 1982.
The most recent statistics for the rest of the Community are for December 1983. They show that between 1981 and 1983 the United Kingdom herd, with an increase of 4·1 per cent., grew faster than the herds in France, Italy, Belgium, Denmark and Greece. Only the herds in Germany, the Netherlands. Luxembourg and Ireland expanded more than the United Kingdom. With permission, I shall publish the information in full in the Official Report.

Mr. Hardy: In the light of that and previous answers, have the Minister and his colleagues begun to have any misgivings at all about the wretched failure of the Government's dairy farming policy? The figures that he has just given may well be accurate, but does he accept that the fact remains that we are much nearer to reaching the position that the Government pledged than any other member state within the Community?

Mr. MacGregor: Like my right hon. Friend, in the past few months I have been spending a great deal of time in many parts of the country with dairy farmers. There is increasing acceptance that it was necessary to curb the ever-spiralling costs of the dairy surplus throughout the Community. We have been devoting much effort in Brussels to ensuring that the Commission's regulations are applied fairly and uniformly throughout the Community. There is increasing evidence that they are and that milk supplies are coming down in other countries.

Mr. Budgen: As the number of dairy cows is crucially decided by milk quotas, will my hon. Friend confirm that within the EEC there is no machinery for the enforcement of those quotas if a member state decides to defy the EEC?

Mr. MacGregor: If a member state decides to defy the EEC by not implementing the regulations, as distinct from the individual producer going above his quota, there is the stiff penalty of disallowance on Community expenditure in that country in the dairy sector.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the national milk production trends quoted by his right hon. Friend a couple of minutes ago are highly selective? Is it not deeply disturbing that in France, Italy and Ireland milk production between April and September increased? Whatever views the hon. Gentleman is attributing to farmers, let me make it clear that no one in the dairy industry wants thousands of jobs destroyed in order to pave the way for increased production on the continent.

Mr. MacGregor: We have already made it clear, and I underline it, that we are determined that the system is applied fairly throughout the Community. It is true that the pace of decline differs from country to country. The speed with which the system has come in in different countries has varied, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the drought has had an effect here; but there is evidence of a decline, and we shall continue to watch it carefully.

Mr. Jim Spicer: When does my hon. Friend expect to see the first quota payments into the Commission from those countries which are in excess of their quota? That is when the money will be on the line and when we shall know whether people are playing fair.

Mr. MacGregor: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. The answer is mid-November.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister not recall having gone down this road once before when he came to the Dispatch Box as a Minister in the Department of Industry to assure us that the Europeans would cut the steel industry down to size? They did not do so on that occasion and they will not do so on this occasion. Will the Minister finally learn a lesson?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that I came to the Dispatch Box and made that particular comment, but I repeat that at every Council meeting we raise the point that the system must apply fairly throughout the Community. We fully understand and share the United Kingdom dairy industry's interests and we are determined to see that that is done.

Following is the information:


Dairy Herd Size in the European Community



December 1981
December 1983
Change



'000 head
'000 head
per cent.


Germany
5,438
5,735
5·5


France
7,054
7,195
2·0


Italy
3,016
3,068
1·7


Netherlands
2,407
2,521
4·7


Belgium
965
995
3·1


Luxembourg
63
73
7·4


Ireland
1,453
1,535
5·3


Denmark
1,020
988
-3·1


Greece
242
237
-2·1


United Kingdom
3,293
3,429
4·1

Source Eurostat.

Straw and Stubble Burning

Mr. Proctor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with present procedures governing the burning of straw and stubble; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the new guidelines on straw burning have operated satisfactorily.

Mr. Jopling: The new stricter model byelaws have been adopted by most district councils in the cereal growing areas, and the National Farmers Union has issued a revised code of practice. Together they have brought about a considerable improvement in straw and stubble burning practices this year. The number of incidents has been much reduced. I shall be studying reports on the season as a whole, and considering whether any further action is necessary.

Mr. Proctor: The vast majority of farmers take a responsible attitude to straw burning, but will my right hon. Friend accept that some problems continue to occur? Will his Ministry continue to evaluate new machinery and techniques for the incorporation of straw and to spread that practice throughout the industry?

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that the majority of farmers are responsible people.
I am sure that that is true and that the number of farmers who have been irresponsible has never been less in recent years in regard to straw burning. The whole arrangement still needs careful attention. I am conscious of the difficulties that still sometimes occur, perhaps in windy conditions, with smoke and smut. I shall look into those difficulties.

Mr. Bennett: How many prosecutions have there been under the byelaws, and what sort of penalties have been imposed as a result of the introduction of those byelaws? Does the Minister accept that neither the byelaws nor the code of practice has made any difference? The majority of farmers were already carrying out good practice, and the irresponsible ones do not appear to have taken any notice of either the code of practice or the byelaws. They have continued to cause a nuisance to their neighbours, to put lives at risk on motorways, and to put a large number of wild animals at risk when the burning gets out of control and hedgerows and other areas are damaged.

Mr. Jopling: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that there has been a great deal less trouble this year than last year. That is reflected in the number of complaints received by my Ministry, which is about a quarter of the number received last year.
I have no information about the number of prosecutions. That is not information that we would normally collect. However, like the hon. Gentleman, I have recently seen a newspaper report about prosecutions being brought. If local authorities wish to prosecute irresponsible farmers, I believe that that is the right thing to do.

Sir Anthony Grant: I wholly condemn the infernal nuisance caused by irresponsible straw burning, but will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the vast majority of farmers—especially in Cambridgeshire—who have not only scrupulously observed the code, but are pressing the authorities to prosecute the irresponsible and reckless minority?

Mr. Jopling: I endorse what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that what he has said about Cambridgeshire could be said of many other counties too. I know that farmers have tried hard to stick to the code of practice and the byelaws, and that many of them have suffered considerable inconvenience because, in order to avoid causing a public nuisance, they have not burnt straw at weekends, even though that might have been the best time to do so.

Mr. Home Robertson: I have burnt some straw this year, in accordance with the code of practice, but I assure the Minister that most farmers would far rather use this material for a productive purpose. Will the Minister answer the supplementary question of his hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), and tell us more about what his Department is doing to assist with research into alternative uses for straw?

Mr. Jopling: As one who—having burnt straw for many years—did not burn any at all this year, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department spends nearly £2 million a year on research units and development of these matters. Projects which we are financing include the incorporation of chopped straw into the soil, treatment of the straw to improve its value for animal feed, and its use as a fuel. We urge farmers to burn only when there are no alternative uses for the straw.

Agricultural Prices

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there are now adequate funds in the European Economic Community agriculture budget to guarantee the requirements of the 1984 price fixing agreed in the Brussels price review 1984.

Mr. Jopling: The draft 1984 supplementary budget, which is now under consultation in the European Parliament, is based on estimates of expenditure requirements to the end of the year which take account of the effects of the price-fixing settlement.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister assure us that in any event adequate financial resources will be available for British agriculture for the rest of the calendar year and that there will be no recurrence of the arbitrary measures taken last year to try to save money, which had the effect of destabilising markets and withdrawing support from agriculture in Britain?

Mr. Jopling: My belief at the moment is that there is not likely to be a significant shortfall, provided that the draft supplementary budget is adopted.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If there is a carry-over of spending for the 1984 budget, how does my right hon. Friend think the Common Market will be able to afford the huge budget provided for 1985, which includes provision of £120 million a week for storing, dumping or destroying surplus production?

Mr. Jopling: I remind my hon. Friend that, at the end of 1984, funds ran out. Many colleagues who represent agricultural constituencies will remember that many grants and aids in the last months of 1984 were deferred until the money came in in 1985. If the draft supplementary budget is adopted, I hope that we will not have serious difficulties.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is there not a 700 million ecu deficit in this year's budget which is to be carried over into next year's budget? How will that money be found and how can the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly say that agricultural spending is under control?

Mr. Jopling: I have said repeatedly that we have made a giant first step in getting common agricultural policy spending under control. The steps that we took earlier this year to reduce the amount of milk going into intervention throughout the Community was a major step. The prices of most agricultural products were reduced and we imposed guarantee thresholds across a broad spectrum of agricultural produce. We have made giant steps towards putting spending in order, although I readily acknowledge that there is much left to do.

Vessel Owners (Decommissioning Grants)

Mr. Wallace: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many decommissioning grants have been paid to vessel owners since the inception of the scheme.

Mr. MacGregor: Fifty one.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister expect the rate of applications for the grant to increase during the next six months in view of the Government's sell-out to the European Community by increasing the percentage by-catch in the Norwegian pout fishery, which has been


universally condemned by fishermen's associations throughout the country as threatening the health and wellbeing of the fishing industry?

Mr. MacGregor: I should be surprised if the effect of decommissioning grants was as the hon. Gentleman outlined. I shall write to him about the Norway pout by-catch issue. I do not believe that the grants will have the effect that he described, as the stock that will be most increased in the by-catch is whiting and we are well short of our quota for whiting. That will remain the case, so there is plenty of opportunity to catch the fish.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Minister agree that more decommissioning grants will be called for in the light of the report which appeared in The Scotsman, which said that, by September, the Dutch had already fished three times their quota of mackerel for 1985? In view of the long delay in mackerel fisheries around the west coast of Scotland, does the Minister agree that the continual breaking of the rules will result in disaster for our fishermen?

Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the British Government insisted on the setting up of the Inspectorate of Inspectors. There is already clear evidence from several fishery closures that the inspectorate is working. We are awaiting Commission reports on one matter relating to the Dutch Government. We must wait and see what it says. We shall look to the Commission to take vigorous action if any irregularities are uncovered. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the inspectorate is beginning to have the impact that we desired.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Perhaps I might make the rhetorical point that hardly any Danish vessels have been decommissioned under schemes such as this. Does the Minister agree that the English industry's real need is not decommissioning grants, which go to the owners rather than to the fishermen and simply reduce our ability to catch fish that are rightfully ours, but operating help to keep the industry going. whether in the form of a fuel subsidy such as the French enjoy or measures to keep ports such as Grimsby open? Grimsby has been threatened with closure recently and may be again unless the entire industry becomes more profitable.

Mr. MacGregor: My rhetorical answer to the hon. Gentleman's rhetorical point is that the Danes have had to close fisheries this year as a result of the inspectorate's action. I saw that for myself when I went to Denmark last week. The hon. Gentleman is tenacious on the second matter that he raised and I shall have to give him an equally tenacious answer. We see no prospect of operating subsidies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the impact of the decommissioning grant—£7 million has already been paid, some of which has gone to Grimsby. By December 1986, £15 million will have been paid. That helps to bring our fleet's capacity more into line with fishing opportunities in pressure stocks. That is bound to help fishermen.

Dr. Godman: Given that vessels need crews to sail them, what is the likelihood of EC decommissioning grants being awarded to redundant fishermen?

Mr. MacGregor: That would not be permitted under the regulations governing the decommissioning grants.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister face his responsibilities for the men who have lost their jobs after years in the industry? It is not good enough for the buck to be passed backwards and forwards between this country and Brussels. The Minister has a responsibility to those who work in the industry as well as to the boat owners.

Mr. MacGregor: I was not passing the buck back to Brussels; I was asked a question about decommissioning grants, which come from Brussels. The matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is primarily the responsibility of the Department of Employment. When the main impact occurred, successive Governments, including the previous Labour Government, decided not to take action on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It would be wrong to make payments going back many years and covering events that occurred under the Labour Government.

Conservation

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that the farming and wildlife advisory groups provide regular advice to farmers on all matters relating to conservation.

Mr. Jopling: Farming and wildlife advisory groups are independent voluntary bodies, to which my Department gives substantial practical assistance. It is for the groups themselves to decide how best to pursue their aims.

Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact, that in spite of the commendable work of these groups, some farmers still seem unaware of the ecological and landscape importance of their land? Will my right hon. Friend and his Ministry do all that they can to encourage the advisory groups to be more vigilant and vigorous against the farming cowboys, who are only a minority, but who do great damage to our environment and to the cause of conservation?

Mr. Jopling: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I hope he will agree with me that we might all do well to remember that farmers have largely created the diverse and beautiful countryside that we know today. Generally, they are showing an increasing awareness of the need to manage their land in ways that are sympathetic to the interests of conservation.

Mr. Dalyell: With regard to Halvergate, why cannot the Ministry use article 3(5) of the European land development legislation to do what the Dutch have successfully done in northern Holland? Will the right hon. Gentleman take a giant step in that direction along the lines advocated by the Council for the Protection of Rural England?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I do not believe that article 3(5) is appropriate, because it relates to areas suffering physical handicap from farming. Some conservationally sensitive areas, such as Halvergate, are profitable and could not by any definition be described as physically handicapped farming areas. I doubt whether article 3(5) could legitimately be used in connection with the less-favoured areas directive 75/268 in areas such as Halvergate.

Wine Production

Mr. Yeo: askedthe Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of wine production in England.

Mr. MacGregor: It is a little early yet to assess the size of this year's harvest, as many of the grapes have not yet been picked, but it appears that production of English wine might slightly exceed last year's level of 3 million bottles.

Mr. Yeo: Will my hon. Friend consider stimulating the demand for English wine, which is produced from grapes grown in this country, by making it clear on the labels of bottles of so-called British wine that it is produced from grapes grown outside this country?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am keen to encourage the increased consumption of English wine by United Kingdom consumers. One way in which that could be done would be to draw greater attention to the results of a "What Wine?" competition for white wines, in which two of the top three and five of the top 12 European wines were English. The winner was from a village in my constituency. I think that that is a tribute to the successful development of this young industry.

Mr. Alexander: Would it not provide a welcome boost to our wine industry if we had a more sensible relaxation of this country's licensing laws? Will my hon. Friend have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find out why decent English wine, not least in the House of Commons restaurant, costs more than comparable French wine?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall refer my hon. Friend's comments to my respective right hon. Friends. However, it is not just the impact of taxation that makes English wine slightly more expensive. It is increasingly becoming a better quality wine, and therefore comparable with the more expensive ones.

Pesticides

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about the control of pesticides.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Since my right hon. Friend's announcement on 10 May we have carried out a wide-ranging consultation exercise and we have made a number of public statements of our intentions. The comments received from the consultation have been taken into account in preparing primary legislation to ensure the safe and efficient use of pesticides. This will be introduced to Parliament at an early opportunity.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: With regard to the concern about side effects, are the Government resolved that the use of pesticides should be kept to a minimum, as recommended in the seventh report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution?

Mrs. Fenner: Yes, Sir. The proposals that we are outlining—about which some fanners were clearly concerned—quote only maximum uses, and we are always concerned to have the minimum uses.

Sheds and Warehouses (Bird Proofing)

Mr. Parry: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help his Ministry has given with the bird-proofing of sheds and warehouses in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Fenner: The Ministry's local professional staff have provided advice to the owners of those stores in Liverpool, which were put under restriction because of the danger of disseminating disease. More generally, a code of practice for storekeepers is being drawn up in consultation with the industry.

Mr. Parry: Is the Minister satisfied that warehouse owners will comply with the recent change in regulations and that there will be no more outbreaks in the sheds?

Mrs. Fenner: Yes, indeed. The Ministry veterinary officers derestricted the stores only after inspecting them. We have been giving advice about how to keep them free of birds. We have also inspected 70 other port areas to ensure that there is no spread of the disease by feral pigeons.

Farmland (Subsidence)

Mr. Heddle: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of farming land were lost in 1983–84 due to coalmining subsidence.

Mr. MacGregor: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend accept that many small farmers in coal mining counties such as Staffordshire have their livelihoods threatened because they are unable to obtain compensation from the NCB for consequential losses due to coal mining subsidence? Will he urge our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to implement the recommendations and proposals of the Waddilove report at the earliest possible date?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend implies, the Waddilove report is most useful. As he knows, it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but I can assure him that my right hon. Friend is considering it most carefully and that the Ministry is fully involved in the considerations on issues that affect agriculture. We shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments in that regard, but I cannot at this stage make any further comment as to the date.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that the problem could be resolved by treating the coal mining industry in the same way as the farming industry is treated? Does he further accept that in the Government's Think Tank report issued in November 1983 the subsidy figure for the year 1984–85 is equivalent to £1,000 million, plus all the money that comes from the Common Market? According to that report, it is equivalent to £20,000 per farmer. If the coal mining industry got that, it would solve all those problems.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has read, but his figures are quite wrong.

Animals (Transit)

Mr. Nicholls: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stage he has reached in his continuing review of safeguards to protect live animals in transit.

Mrs. Fenner: Existing legislation provides substantial safeguards. We shall continue to keep these under review and will present proposals for improvements to Parliament where a real need has been identified.

Mr. Nicholls: As the regulations governing the transit of animals by air and sea have been under discussion for review since 1980, will my hon. Friend ensure that they are brought to a speedy conclusion, given that many people are very concerned about the way in which animals are treated during transit?

Mrs. Fenner: Transit legislation is under constant review. We are ready to make proposals whenever the need arises. We shall be making an order on the transport of animals by sea when we have finalised our views in the light of the many comments that we have received. If my hon Friend is nagging me to get on with it, I respond.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Williams: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a dinner given by President and Madame Mitterrand.

Mr. Williams: In this no doubt welcome interlude in the Prime Minister's other engagements, will she take the opportunity to confide in the House and tell us whether she is proud of the fact that within the last month her policies have achieved the worst unemployment levels ever recorded, the worst manufacturing trade figures ever recorded and the lowest level for sterling ever recorded? Which part of the economy does she intend to destroy next month?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the policies needed to create greater industrial and commercial wealth. The policies needed are those being pursued by this Government. With regard to the manufacturing figures, it is only sense that if we have a big oil industry and a big balance of trade in our favour that has to be balanced out either by increasing imports or by increasing capital investment overseas. The Labour party is against both.

Sir Bernard Braine: I appreciate the moves already made by the Government to bring emergency food and medical aid to the famine-stricken areas of Ethiopia. May we have an assurance that, subject to co-operation from the Ethiopian authorities, nothing—but nothing—will be spared to ensure that effective aid is brought to the afflicted as speedily as possible, not excluding the use of air transport?

The Prime Minister: We are very concerned about the situation and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made certain that increased food aid is available from Britain. About 6,000 tonnes of additional food aid and about £5 million in drought-related assistance is available to Ethiopia. I am in touch with the President of the European Community and I am urging him to encourage the other countries in the European Community to follow our example.
The problem is not in getting food to Ethiopia, but, as my hon. Friend indicated in his question, in food distribution. We shall do everything possible to ensure that

the right transport is available. We have tried to distribute most of our aid through the International Red Cross and the Save the Children Fund. We are anxious to do everything that we can. In view of the lead that we have taken, we hope that other countries in Europe will follow.

Mr. Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Lady for that answer and follow the question by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). The whole House will share the deep public anxiety about the famine in Ethiopia. The Opposition want to welcome the steps already taken by the Government to make some additional emergency relief available.
Does the right hon. Lady agree that resources should be mobilised in defence of laves with the same skill and speed as they were mobilised not long ago by Britain in defence of liberty?
May I try to strengthen the Prime Minister's voice by saying that the European Commission and our European partners should be left in absolutely no doubt that Britain and the British people want the red tape to be cut? There must be no bureaucratic inhibition to the proper provision of the necessary resources. I am sure that the whole country is united behind the right hon. Lady on this matter. Resources and personnel should be provided to ensure that sufficient food is given and effectively delivered to the needy in Ethiopia.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. British food aid shipments are already arriving regularly. The main problem is the internal distribution. We cannot choke existing port facilities that are under heavy strain. The additional 6,000 tonnes of food aid allocated yesterday will arrive in Ethiopia before the end of the year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Year?"] We are urgently consulting our ambassador in Addis Ababa on how the £5 million can be put to the best possible use. We shall have to ship food and pay for its internal transport We are providing lorries to facilitate unloading and are considering other equipment needed by the port. We are also considering the provision of drilling rigs to secure water supplies for relief camps. We shall continue to provide other forms of direct disaster relief, including medical supplies. Everything that can be done will be done.

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Penhaligon: As the Prime Minister so magnificently organised the commandeering of enough ships to carry our Navy, Army and Air Force to the Falklands, will she explain why the famine relief in Ethiopia presents such a problem?

The Prime Minister: I have already explained the reasons. We do not wish to choke existing port facilities that are already under heavy strain. The analogy which the hon. Gentleman attempted to draw was wholly false.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, much as we deplore the ludicrous incident with the French security man, many of us would be distressed were that regrettable incident to mar the visit of the French President? Is she further aware that we would also regret it if that incident had any effect on the French ambassador, who is a very good friend of this country?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. It was a most regrettable incident. The French authorities are aware of our view that it was wholly wrong for the individual to act in the way that he did. They regret the misunderstanding.
It is of great concern that explosive materials were brought into Britain. Urgent discussions have begun, and will continue, with the French Government about the incident. I agree with my hon. Friend that it should not be allowed to mar the success of the French visit. President Mitterrand is a welcome and honoured guest in our country.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Prime Minister feel it to be preposterous that a body calling itself the European Parliament should presume to debate and vote upon a matter internal to the United Kingdom—the dispute in the mining industry?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. If the European Parliament attempts to debate a British internal matter, that will diminish that Parliament.

Poverty

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister what new steps the Government are taking to reduce poverty in the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: A better standard of living depends upon our success in creating more wealth in the country as a whole. This year's gross domestic product is now at its highest ever level, and income is higher than at any time under the last Labour Government. Resources have also been provided for a real increase in social security benefit rates of £2·75 billion since 1979. The retirement pension is at its highest ever level; so is the child benefit; so is spending on benefits for the sick and disabled; so are heating allowances. The Government intend to continue with the policies which have achieved these results.

Mr. Bennett: Does the right hon. Lady realise that that answer will be of little comfort to the poor in Britain? Is it not true that under her Government the number of people living in poverty has increased and that the length of time that they have to live in poverty has also steadily increased? Will she consult her handbag to find out whether she has any unpaid bills for major items such as clothing, and reflect on the fact that for a large number of people living in poverty the unpaid bill is a nightmare and that many of them have less to spend in their annual budget for clothing than people in this House spend on one such item?

The Prime Minister: There are certainly more people on supplementary benefits than there were. There is an increase in the number of pensioners, but the main increase has been in the number of unemployed who have resort to supplementary benefits. The benefits which those on supplementary benefit receive are, in real terms, greater than they ever were under the previous Government.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that because there is such a close and obvious connection between poverty and unemployment, the most useful thing that the trade unions could do would be to abate their wage demands?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct in making the connection between wage demands and unemployment. Those countries with the lowest unemployment rate are those with the lowest unit wage costs. The essential thing is to have a connection between wage demands and increased output. If we are to get unemployment down, it is also essential not to have the number of strikes that we now have.

Engagements

Mr. Heddle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Heddle: Has my right hon. Friend yet had time to study the remarks made by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers when arriving at talks with the National Coal Board today, when he said that he had nothing to offer in these talks? Is this not the clearest possible sign that, although he may talk of wanting a negotiated settlement, he has neither the wish nor the will to negotiate or settle?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will agree that the settlement reached with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers yesterday was a fair one. It was a settlement reached between a union which was anxious to settle but had certain points to put to the NCB, and it was a settlement which suited NACODS and the NCB because it enabled the latter to run the coal industry efficiently and in accordance with its statutory obligations. I hope that any other people on strike will agree that that was a good settlement and join NACODS in accepting it and ending the strike.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Prime Minister not understand that there will be no return to work in the coal mining industry—[Interruption.]—until there is a settlement that is acceptable to the NUM and its membership? What action or initiative does the Prime Minister have to bring about such a settlement?

The Prime Minister: The NCB has already negotiated within the limit of its statutory obligations, which are to run the industry efficiently, in accordance with the nationalised industries Acts and the objectives that it has been given. There is no longer any industrial reason for this dispute to continue.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 25 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Baker: Is it not the case that those miners who are working are those who have had a local ballot, and that the members of NACODS are working after having a ballot? Therefore, would it not be appropriate if those who are on strike were allowed the opportunity to have a ballot? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had a conversation this morning with the family of a miner on strike, which revealed that many who are on strike would like to have a ballot and would like to work?

The Prime Minister: There are some 70,000 people at work in the collieries under the NCB. Most of those people exercised their right to have a ballot and voted to


continue to work under the rules of the NUM. They are at work, and so are the members of NACODS—which also had a ballot—as are those who work for the other union. Of the people on strike, I believe that most would like to have a ballot so that they can express their wish to return to work. They are being prevented only by the leadership of the NUM, supported by the Labour party and mob violence.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Prime Minister have regard to the serious incident at the Stanley Royd hospital in my constituency during the summer recess, in which it is alleged that 21 people died through food poisoning? Is she

aware of the concern over the incident and the allegations that have been made about shortages of materials and staff? Will she impress upon her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the need to speed up the public inquiry so that evidence can be taken while events are fresh in the minds of those who want to give it, and the matter resolved?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the incident and I shall make a point of bringing it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health. I shall draw his attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Budget and Excel Holidays

Mr. Dick Douglas: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the collapse of Budget and Excel Holidays.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) for giving me this opportunity to make a brief statement on the collapse of Budget and Excel Holidays.
The Budget group of companies went into receivership yesterday, triggered it seems by the refusal by Brittania Airways, owed money by the group, to carry any more passengers booked with it. The consequences of this failure are inevitably upsetting for those who have paid in advance for holidays with Budget and Excel but who have yet to take those holidays. Those currently abroad on holiday must be very worried about getting home. I am pleased to be able to give the House total reassurance on both these points.
Those who have paid for but not yet taken holidays will get their money back in full. The Budget group's financial bonds should be enough to meet all refunds. If not, the air travel reserve fund stands in reserve and has ample funds. Subject to availability, travel agents should be able to offer immediate alternative holidays to those affected at no extra cost.
The Civil Aviation Authority and the Association of British Travel Agents already have arrangements in hand to repatriate those overseas. Last night's flights left on time, bringing home those due to return yesterday. Aircraft have been chartered through to 11 o'clock tonight to return those finishing their holidays today. Further flights are being arranged and both the CAA and ABTA are doing their best to ensure that everyone overseas gets their full holiday. Everyone will be repatriated at no cost to themselves.
It may be helpful if I explain briefly to the House the position of the CAA's monitoring of this group of companies. The CAA began to have serious concerns about these companies a few weeks ago. The authority has also put its own auditors into the group. It was, of course, always faced with the fact that many of the holidays were booked well in advance. In the absence of the group satisfying the CAA, it seems likely that its air travel organiser's licence would shortly have been revoked in any case. It is a matter of judgment whether the CAA should have moved to revoke the air traffic organiser's licence earlier in the season and thus have left stranded even more holidaymakers.
The holiday industry has been going through a difficult period. There have been a number of recent failures brought about by price cutting and a switch to late booking, which has dried up cash flows. The signs are, however, that brochure prices next year will be substantially higher. Despite the recent problems, the financial arrangements of the industry coupled with the air travel reserve fund are such that, as in the Budget and Excel cases, holidaymakers need not fear for their money.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also considering an independent report by Sir Peter Lane which suggest ways in which the present arrangements might be

further strengthened. We are giving this the closest consideration and the CAA is currently consulting the industry on higher bonding levels. I hope shortly to make a further statement about this.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the Minister for that reply, but his last remarks involve considerable disquite. Sir Peter Lane reported in July and one of the recommendations was that the CAA should tighten up the procedures. Has this not been done? What is the total cost of repatriation procedures involving holidaymakers? Will there be any recourse to the funds of the air travel reserve fund? What is the morality of a position whereby holidaymakers pay well in advance—sometimes eight weeks—for holidays, which means that the funds are with the travel company? If such companies collapse, the holidaymakers have to pay again, through an increased levy or by other means. Are those the ethics of capitalism today?

Mr. Spicer: Obviously, it is difficult to get a definite cost, but we think that at the moment it is about £2 million, which would be fully covered by the £3·8 million bonding arrangements. The answer to the question whether there will be any need to draw from the air travel reserve fund is no. That is how we see the position at the moment. The answer to the question whether one can give any total guarantee to holidaymakers that the companies with which they book will not run into financial difficulties must clearly be no. The present guarantees that holidaymakers obtain through the various arrangements must be far higher than those obtained by any other customers who obtain any other form of service.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Although I regret the inconvenience to which holiday-makers will be subjected, is it not wise to underline the fact that the state of consumer protection for package holidaymakers is such a combination of CAA bonding and the air travel reserve fund means that, unlike the position a decade ago, when considerable financial loss was incurred, the people who are affected now will suffer no more than inconvenience? In the event of further tour company failures, which are being predicted, will my hon. Friend examine the efficiency of the operation of the combined system of bonding and the ATRF and decide whether Sir Peter Lane was not unduly dismissive of the possible alternative of insurance arrangements?

Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said in the first part of his question. We believe that holidaymakers are well covered at the moment. We are not, however, complacent about that, as is implied in the second part of my hon. Friend's question. Clearly, there is always room for improvement. If one of the biggest operators went under in the middle of the peak season, there would be pressure on the combined funds. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked Sir Peter Lane to ascertain whether there were ways in which we could strengthen the funding arrangements. That is why we are looking at his report and why we have every intention of doing what we can to strengthen the funding further.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: No doubt the House is glad that it has been confirmed that no money will be lost on these occasions, but a great number of holidays for members of the public will be spoilt. The Under-Secretary of State will realise, of course, that Budget Holidays is the


leading direct-sell firm in this area and that the collapse involves the failure of not one but four firms—Excel Holidays, Budget America, Bargain Travel and Airsave Travel. The hon. Gentleman will realise also that this year there were two earlier failures—of Ventura Holidays and Vantage Holidays. In the light of those facts, does not the hon. Gentleman believe that there is a need for greater safeguarding of the public? Does he realise that many have thought that his earlier statement did not convey the kind of urgency that is required in these matters?

Mr. Spicer: This is not, of course, a happy event for holidaymakers. It is a matter not just of their being threatened with losing money—they have not—but of having their holidays disrupted. As I said in my statement, we are doing everything that we can to ensure that those who wish to continue their holidays can do so for the next few days of those holidays. We accept that there may be a case for strengthening the arrangements. There will always be a case for strengthening the arrangements. We are certainly doing everything that we can in that respect. We shall shortly publish a statement about that matter.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that, short of nationalising all the people involved in the travel business, there is no way in which one can guarantee that companies will not go bust? I should not have thought that that would appeal to my hon. Friend, and I do not think that it would appeal to the people as a whole to have nationalised holidays. This industry gives better cover to its consumers through the two plans that are available than is available to any consumer of any other industry.

Mr. Spicer: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The fact is, of course, that this is a dynamic industry which during the past few years has grown from 600 to 700 operators. In those circumstances, from time to time there will doubtless be some companies that are not financially prudent. Bar the kind of ghastly alternative that my hon. Friend has suggested, there is no way that one can give a complete guarantee; it does, however, give the best possible customer protection of any industry.

Mr. David Young: Are not the Government now becoming over-complacent? The Opposition are not asking for the nationalising of the industry; we are asking that the operators be responsible to the consumers who pay their wages. Will the Government tighten the requirements and ensure that operators provide resources to cover their commitments before they soak customers?

Mr. Spicer: There is no question of complacency. That is why my right hon. Friend initiated the strengthening of this protection in the summer by asking Sir Peter Lane to make a report. We shall be making an announcement about that soon.

Mr. Bill Walker: While accepting that there is always need to strengthen requirements and protection, this industry has substantial protection. Does my hon. Friend agree that many hundreds of thousands of people in the United Kingdom have enjoyed what can only be described as bargain holidays over the past 18 months because of the price cutting that has been going on? That is the plus side for all those people who had bargain holidays. It is an industry that employs a great many people and provides work for our airline operators as well as the tour operators. We must therefore always look carefully at the plus as well as the down side.

Mr. Spicer: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. People certainly would not obtain bargain holidays from a nationalised industry.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the Minister accept that it is disturbing that there should have been a further major failure in the travel industry, which inevitably causes great inconvenience and disappointment, particularly when it follows a number of other failures in the industry in recent weeks? We accept, of course, that when the Government's economic policies are doing such enormous damage to the economy and producing so many record insolvencies, it would be unrealistic to expect the travel industry to be immune. We are worried about the fate of those who are disadvantaged by these failures. In that context, I wonder whether the Minister could say a further word about the estimated 2,000 holidaymakers who booked their holidays with Excel Holidays after 16 October. Given that the Association of British Travel Agents' protection offered by that firm expired on that date, can he say what steps were taken to draw to the attention of holidaymakers who bought holidays after that date the fact that the protection no longer existed? Finally, will he say whether he is satisfied that adequate consular protection will be available to those holidaymakers already abroad whose holidays have been disrupted?

Mr. Spicer: On the second point about consuls, I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is made fully aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The position is that funds are fully available for protecting all those who have any money at stake.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir.
MONDAY 29 OCTOBER—Further consideration of Lords amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Motion relating to the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations. Lords amendments to the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill. Completion of remaining stages of the Rents (Scotland) Bill [Lords] which is a consolidation measure.
TUESDAY 30 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the unemployment situation on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 31 OCTOBER—Motions on the General Consumer Council (Northern Ireland) Order. Ratification of treaty amending the status of Greenland within the EC order. Motion on salary of Data Protection Registrar. Debate on motions to approve the first report from the Select Committee on Procedure 1983–84 No. 570 on short speeches. Debate on motion to approve the report of the. Services Committee on all-party groups.
The House may also be asked to consider other business as necessary. Prorogation will be on Wednesday 31 October and the new Session will be opened on Tuesday 6 November.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
I am glad that the Government are providing an opportunity on Tuesday for a debate on the deteriorating unemployment position, but I am rather surprised and sorry that apparently the Prime Minister will not be contributing to that debate. Given the Lord Privy Seal's relationship with the right hon. Lady, could he prevail upon her to change her mind about speaking in Tuesday's debate?
Before the summer recess, the right hon. Gentleman assured me that we could have a debate in Government time in the autumn on the report of the Select Committee on Social Services. The report shows that the increase in National Health Service expenditure has been not 17 per cent. as the Government claimed but 7 per cent. May I press the right hon. Gentleman again to ensure that the House has an early opportunity for a debate to show that the Health Service really is safe in the Government's hands?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman asks for a debate on the report of the Social Services Committee. I suggest that that is a matter that we should pursue through the usual channels.
As for Tuesday's debate on unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman asks why the Prime Minister decided not to contribute. I think that it was out of a sense of anxiety about the right hon. Gentleman's own reckless masochism.

Mr. John Stokes: On Monday we shall continue to debate the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Can my right hon. Friend now say whether the Government intend to oppose Lord Scarman's amendment, as they did in the other place? Has my right

hon. Friend had a chance since this morning to read Ronald Butt's excellent article on the subject in The Times?

Mr. Biffen: The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is no. The answer to his first question is also no, in the sense that that information will be imparted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Government arrange time for a ministerial statement about what representations the Government have made to ensure that the gentleman who committed the outrageous crime of bringing explosives into the country from France is prosecuted in an English court for that offence? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that in that statement we are told why that person was treated by the Metropolitan police with a degree of favour which would not be vouchsafed to a British subject, who by now would probably be in Brixton prison?

Mr. Biffen: I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a very dignified manner, expressed the disquiet felt in the House about that episode. What is more, she had the good sense to put it in the context of a balance. I do not think that I can helpfully add to what she said.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will give early priority to a full debate on the report of the Public Accounts Committee and the Government's reply on the scandal of the De Lorean company?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point very much in mind.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Leader of the House explain why there cannot now be a debate on the dispute in the mining industry for nearly three weeks, until the Queen's Speech and the Humble Address are disposed of, particularly as the courts have today decided to sequestrate the entire assets of the National Union of Mineworkers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Conservative Members may applaud, but the consequences of that action are bound to be very grave. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that it is not a matter that in your judgment should take precedence over the business, and my right hon. Friends have no power in the matter as all the Supply days have been exhausted. Will the Leader of the House explain why he is prepared to allow the dispute to continue without any parliamentary discussion for a period of three weeks?

Mr. Biffen: Because I judge that the business announced for next week is what is necessary for the fulfilment of our commitments for the current Session and because I am sufficiently realistic to know that the topic will feature considerably in the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend consider making time available for a debate on the effects of the strike among social security officials? That would give us all a valuable chance to see whether the Labour party is keener to support the strikers or the elderly pensioners who are the defenceless victims of the strike.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend indicates why such a debate would certainly have a lively character, but there is no possibility of its taking place next week.

Mr. Frank Field: If there were a famine in Britain rather than Ethiopia, many of us would be claiming that the response of the international community was inadequate. Will the Leader of the House find time next week for us to debate the Government's response?

Mr. Biffen: Obviously, the programme for next week is as I have announced, but I say at once that I am fully conscious of the deep anxiety about the famine in Ethiopia, and I hope that we shall soon have a chance to debate it.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1005, in my name and the names of 50 other hon. Members?
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to provide Parliamentary time for an early debate on the question of the death penalty being made available for acts of terrorism.]
Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of finding time, either in this Session or early next Session, to enable a debate to take place? Will he also bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary? I think that the House is very concerned that 91 people have been killed and over 1,000 injured as a result of terrorism.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend informed me, via the letter columns of The Times newspaper, that it is his intention to introduce a Bill in the next parliamentary Session, so I realise that he will be turning his energies in that direction. As the question of Private Members' Bills will be resolved very early in the next Session of Parliament, perhaps we can wait and see what happens then.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the Leader of the House aware that defence Ministers will meet in Brussels in December to consider, as recommended by their officials, the adoption of the airland battle strategy? If that strategy is adopted, it will take us another giant step towards total nuclear annihilation. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that hon. Members should have an opportunity to speak to the Secretary of State for Defence before he goes to Brussels? Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State to make a statement to this House?

Mr. Biffen: In view of the timing of the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, it is clear that it is a topic which can feature in the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1016:
[That this House calls for an early debate of the Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology.]
It has been signed by 66 hon. Members, and that is an indication of the importance that many hon. Members attach to an early debate. Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope that we shall be able to discuss the report in the very near future?

Mr. Biffen: In the words of all those who have stood at this Dispatch Box down the ages, I can hold out sympathy and it might stretch to hope, but I would not like to push it much further.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: I refer to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for

Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) concerning the news on the tape that the funds of the NUM have been sequestrated. It is a very serious matter, despite the howls of approval that we heard from the Conservative Benches. Am Ito take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question on this very serious action—it will be regarded as provocative—that he does not intend to make arrangements for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box, either today or next week, to make a statement?

Mr. Biffen: If my remarks about a debate on the coal industry are to be regarded as provocative, there must be an army of people looking feverishly for provocation. Of course, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the possibility of a statement to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I remind the House that energy questions are first for answer on Monday 29 October. Hon. Members should try to exploit that opportunity as well.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: As the House will be sitting rather late on Monday night, would my right hon. Friend like to spend some time on Monday night reflecting on the advantages of the special procedure by which Standing Committees can take evidence, and would he like to think of applying that procedure next Session to the Bill which is designed to give legislative effect to the White Paper on buses?

Mr. Biffen: I am certainly not prepared to accept the premise about the House sitting late on Monday. As I do not accept the premise, I am immediately excused from considering any consequences.

Mr. Greville Janner: May the House have an early opportunity to debate sentencing policy in the light of the derisory sentences that are so often imposed on those who kill on our roads, and particularly in the light of the case during the recess when a hit-and-run driver who had been drinking and who was untaxed and uninsured, ran down and killed a child whose body was thrown over a fence, and was then sentenced to a mere £500 fine and three years' disqualification? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House should discuss the public outrage at such cases and the fact that the courts and the law are being brought into disrepute by such cases?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises a serious point, but in the first instance it might be suitable for an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any statement on the dreadful famine in Ethiopia should deal not only with the important matter of immediate food relief but the equally important long-term question of helping the people of Ethiopia to grow food with which to feed themselves?

Mr. Biffen: I accept that at once. It reinforces my anxiety that the House should have an early opportunity to debate that topic.

Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the great concern in many fishing areas following the decision of the Community Council of Fisheries Ministers in September about the increase in percentage by-catch by the Norwegian pout fishery. It is disappointing not to have the


opportunity to discuss the matter on our return from the recess, but will there be an opportunity for a debate near the beginning of the new Session?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman may find that the debate on the Queen's Speech is as good an opportunity as he will have to discuss the matter.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend say when Her Majesty's Government will make a statement to the House about British citizens incarcerated in Libya without charge or trial and how much longer we shall be silent on that subject?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has come back to the House after our break showing a proper regard for that subject. I shall refer his question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. As this is the last opportunity for business questions before this Session ends, I shall call those Members who have been standing in their places, but I ask them to be brief.

Mr. Allan Roberts: When will the Government produce a response to the report by the Select Committee on the Environment on acid rain which was published during the recess, and when will the Leader of the House ensure that the House can debate that report?

Mr. Biffen: I am aware of the interest in the Government's response and I also aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Select Committee, has been given an indication that time will be found for that matter to be debated.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: May we have a debate on the two-faced hypocrisy of the Government towards law and order, taking into account the following facts? Yesterday someone came across from the Common Market threatening to plant bombs and got away with it, but the bail conditions for two miners aged 18 and 26 from Whitwell, Derbyshire mean that they have to move 400 miles away to Caithness in Scotland in internal exile. We should also bear in mind the fact that today the funds of the miners' union were seized, yet on 30 September the same Government, instead of allowing Johnson Matthey, the gold bullion dealers whose reserves were exhausted, to collapse, used the Bank of England and all their friends and allies in the casino economy to bail them out. Is not that an example of double standards and hypocrisy?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman's question shows that for him politics is a many-splendoured thing. I suggest that a speech as wide ranging as that question can most adroitly be inserted in the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attended two international conferences since the beginning of the

summer recess—the IMF conference and the Toronto conference on the world debt crisis—is it not time that he made a statement to the House explaining his part in the disgraceful and inadequate decisions taken to deal with poverty in the world today?

Mr. Biffen: Without accepting all or indeed much of the hon. Gentleman's elaboration, I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is apprised of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that a statement should be made.

Mr. Robert Parry: Following the recent excellent campaign by the Liverpool Echo about the massive increase in drug addiction and especially heroin addiction on Merseyside, when will there be a debate in the House on this very important matter?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot say when there will be a debate on that specific subject, but I will cetainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: As leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman represents all Members in all parts of the House. He will be aware of the strong attachment of all Members to Westminster hospital in view of the services that it renders and has rendered to us for a number of years. Is there any chance of the House as a whole being involved in the consultations now taking place which may well dismember important parts of that hospital and eventually lead to its closure? Will the right hon. Gentleman take some initiative on a non-party basis so that the House as a whole may be drawn into the consultations?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look into that.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Leader of the House has already acknowledged that there should be an early debate on Ethiopia. He will recall that the Government published their aid programme in July, but the House has not yet had an opportunity to debate it. Does he agree that we might be in a better position to deal with problems such as those in Ethiopia if we were to adopt a more realistic approach to aid and development?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that any debate on the famine in Ethiopia could probably best be prosecuted in a somewhat wider framework. In that sense, I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. David Young: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Manchester and Liverpool airports are keyed to the economic development of the north-west? In view of Government policy on airlines and so forth, may we expect an early debate on those airports before the Government make any final decision about a third London airport?

Mr. Biffen: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. Indeed, a voice behind me reminds me that concern is not confined to one side of the House. I shall certainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Hong Kong

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I will, with permission, make a statement on developments during the recess in the negotiations between the British and Chinese Governments on the future of Hong Kong.
During my discussions in Peking with Chinese leaders in late July I was able to resolve most of the major issues outstanding in the negotiations. I gave a progress report in a statement in Hong Kong on 1 August. Copies of that statement were placed in the Library of the House on the same day.
Negotiations continued on the remaining unresolved issues and were brought to a successful conclusion on 22 September. As a result, a draft agreement consisting of a joint declaration and three annexes was initialled on 26 September by the British ambassador in Peking and the Chinese Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Zhou Nan. It was published on the same day in a White Paper in London and Hong Kong and laid before the House.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the following important features of the draft agreement. It constitutes a formal international agreement, legally binding in all its parts. This is the highest form of commitment that can be given by one sovereign state to another. It deals in considerable detail with Chinese policies towards Hong Kong after 1997 and thus provides a framework in which the people of Hong Kong can plan and work for a secure and prosperous future. It thus provides for Hong Kong's distinctive economic and social systems, freedoms and lifestyle to continue unchanged. It makes it clear that the policies which it spells out for Hong Kong will be stipulated in a basic law to be passed by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China and will remain unchanged for 50 years after 1997.
It is now for the people of Hong Kong to give their views on the draft agreement. The House has already been informed of the arrangements which have been made to enable them to do so. More than 2 million copies of the White Paper have been distributed in the territory.
I am very glad to be able to tell the House that the Executive Council of Hong Kong has felt able to recommend the draft agreement to the people of Hong Kong—in the words of the senior unofficial member—"in good conscience." The House will also wish to know that at the conclusion of its debate last week the Hong Kong Legislative Council gave the draft agreement its overwhelming support and similarly commended it to the people of Hong Kong. Beyond that, I have been encouraged by the favourable reactions which have come from many other public bodies and individuals in Hong Kong and by the wide international welcome which the draft agreement has received.
The House will in due course wish to know the extent to which the draft agreement as a whole is acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. It was made quite clear in the White Paper that the draft agreement itself cannot be amended, but the views expressed in Hong Kong on all parts of it will be of value in our continuing discussions with the Chinese, particularly in the joint liaison group. I am sure that the House would wish me to urge everyone in Hong Kong to submit their views on all these aspects to the assessment office.
The report of the assessment office, together with that of the monitoring team, will be published at about the end of November. The House will, of course, attach great importance to these reports when it debates the draft agreement and I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be seeking to give the House an early opportunity to debate the matter after the publication of the reports.
It would not be right to anticipate that debate, but the Government have made quite clear their own view that the draft agreement provides the assurances which are necessary if the people of Hong Kong are to face the future with confidence. In the words of the White Paper:
Her Majesty's Government believe that the Agreement is a good one. They strongly recommend it to the people of Hong Kong and to Parliament.

Mr. Denis Healey: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the skill, patience and flexibility that he has shown in conducting an exceptionally delicate negotiation, which may set important precedents in other areas. The agreement must be regarded as the most outstanding achievement of British diplomacy since Lord Carrington concluded the Rhodesian negotiations and the state of Zimbabwe was born. In Hong Kong, as in Zimbabwe, the role of the Foreign Secretary was critical, because the Prime Minister's intemperate intervention at an earlier stage had threatened to torpedo the negotiations before they had even begun.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will agree that the Opposition have given him every assistance when it would have been all too easy for an irresponsible Opposition to seek to exploit some of the difficulties, to party advantage.
I am glad to hear that the House is to debate the agreement before the end of the year when the consultations are complete. If, as I expect, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House receives representations from both sides, I hope he will agree to a two-day debate so that the matter can be fully explored and all points of view fully expressed.
In the light of that impending debate, I shall not raise any points of detail now. I would say only that in my view it is the best possible agreement and very much better than many believed possible even six months ago.
However, let me make two points at this stage which arise out of the agreement or which are not included in it. First, I gather that there is some concern in Hong Kong that the assessment office, which is responsible for gauging public opinion, is insisting that all comment should be given in writing, properly signed, with the full name and address of the writer. I understand why that is so, but there is some anxiety in the colony that information about the views of individuals might later become available to persons and used for victimisation. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can assure the House that such letters will remain strictly confidential and that he will ensure that there is no risk that they could ever be used at a later stage to victimise the writers.
The second point is much more general. Inevitably, a change of status in a territory of this magnitude has disturbed some of the older citizens of the territory and led them to consider packing up sticks and going somewhere else. Knowing a little the character of the Chinese in Hong Kong, I am certain that two new millionaires will spring up where every one old millionaire has left.
I am more concerned about the conduct of British business men in Hong Kong. It has been noticeable that


the American business community has taken a far more optimistic view of the future in Hong Kong than have some of the more self-regarding and old-established British firms, perhaps because they expect to be able to compete on more equal terms for business from now on. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it would be a pity if in Hong Kong, as in so many other ex-British colonies, constitutional change led to foreign firms taking business from British firms which were incapable of adjusting to the new status.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not endorse his observations about the Prime Minister's part at the outset of negotiations. Subject to that, I want to express to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Opposition Benches my appreciation of the congratulations that he has tendered today, and, rightly, for the support that I have received in the course of the many discussions and consultations which we have all had to have about this. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will certainly take note of what was said about the length of the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the desirability of allowing the assessment office to obtain evidence as widely as it can. It is an impressive feature that in a territory with not many more than 5 million people 2 million copies of the agreement have been taken up. That shows the intensity of interest there. For those who are unable to submit written evidence when arrangements can be made they will be able to do so orally through local offices, although it is obviously preferable for such evidence to be in writing wherever possible. The Government of Hong Kong and I are aware of the right hon. Gentleman's point about the need for confidentiality to be preserved in order to avoid any threat of subsequent victimisation. We shall be taking steps to deal with that.
It would be regrettable if the confidence expressed were affected by decisions hereafter of an investment or other nature which were differentiated by reference to nationality. The key point which I sought to emphasise many times in my discussions with the Chinese is that confidence depends on the way in which the system is established and will behave. It is confidence that will command the decisions of a multitude of individual investors. I am sure the House will hope that British investors will continue to play an active part.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I also congratulate the Secretary of State and his officials warmly not only on the agreement achieved, but on the co-operative atmosphere that has been created.
Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had any discussions with the Chinese about involving Hong Kong Chinese with both sides of the liaison? Has he encountered any objection from the People's Republic to the development by the United Kingdom over the next 13 years of directly elected institutions in Hong Kong?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that the agreement cannot be amended, but could it be flexibly evolved to take account of views?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's last point in my statement. I said that while the agreement cannot be amended representations made about it in the years that lie ahead are appropriate to be taken into account by the joint liaison group.
The agreement provides for the Legislature of Hong Kong in the future to be on an elective basis and for the Executive to be accountable to that Legislature. The Hong Kong Government have published a Green Paper foreshadowing the certain changes in the representative arrangements in Hong Kong. They are now considering public comment on those proposals. The comment that has been made generally gives support to the principle of gradual development of representative institutions, perhaps along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. It is hoped that a White Paper setting out the reaction of the Hong Kong Government will be published shortly.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point on the joint liaison group. It is clear from the text of the second annex to the agreement that each side will determine the composition of its delegation. We shall ensure that Hong Kong is appropriately represented.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he had to say about the negotiation of the agreement and I endorse specifically what he said about the part played by the officials, who gave sustained and dedicated service through many long months of negotiation which became increasingly intense as the months went by. No Government could have wished for more devoted service from the civil servants taking part from Britain and Hong Kong.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Conservative Members will endorse the judgment of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when he said that this was the best possible agreement that could be obtained in the circumstances? I say that because of the detail that it contains and the grounds that it gives for believing that it is likely to last.
In endorsing what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the role that officials played in securing the agreement, will he accept my congratulations on his role, not least in July, when it is pretty clear that he played a big role in unblocking the log-jam which existed, at which time I understand that he earned the admiration of the Chinese negotiators for his inscrutable diplomacy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has had to say. I should also like to take the opportunity of saying how large a part was played in the management and conduct of the negotiations by my opposite number, Mr. Wu Xueqian, the Chinese Foreign Minister. It was crucial to our capacity to succeed that we were able to establish a cordial, friendly and practical relationship with each other.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the agreement is most welcome, but that its effectiveness will depend not only on events in China but on the readiness of the people of Hong Kong to develop a form of government that can continue after 1997? Can he confirm that the White Paper on constitutional developments in Hong Kong will be published before the debate in the House so that we can debate it? Is he aware that it is most important that that White Paper should provide at least as much as is already in the agreement—the election of the Legislative Council and the election for appointment of the chief executive after consultations within Hong Kong?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that while the emphasis in Hong Kong is on the maintenance


of stability and gradualism in the development of representative institutions, there is very little time and the people of Hong Kong look to the House to set the pace for what is already an ambitious time scale?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of the point made about the date of publication of the White Paper by the Hong Kong Government. I cannot give an absolute assurance as to the date, but I shall certainly draw that point to their attention. Clearly, it would be helpful if it could be published before the debate took place.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has thought carefully about the pace of development of representative institutions, because he has taken a close interest in the matter. It must be borne in mind that the general position supported by those who have commented in Hong Kong is one of support for the gradual development of representative institutions. The position stated in the agreement is that we start from where we are now. The precise pace of development will be a matter for consideration in the White Paper and after its publication.

Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): I was in Hong Kong when the agreement was signed and remained there for a week afterwards, and therefore was able to form some impression of its reception there. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there was general admiration for the achievement of himself, the governor and the team of diplomats in arriving at such a detailed, comprehensive and understanding agreement? However, the agreement will not come into operation for 14 years.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the maintenance of confidence over that period will depend very much on the conduct of the signatory powers? For instance, the Chinese Government should produce a basic law which is a faithful reflection of the agreement, and it is equally important that Britain should appear genuinely to be committed to Hong Kong right up to 1997 and should retain a great interest in the area long after that.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, and, in particular, for his reminder of the important part played throughout the process not only by the Executive Council members and the members of the Legislative Council, to whom I have already referred, but also by the governor of Hong Kong. The governor bore a double burden, being a continuous member of the negotiating team as well as governor of the territory. I am sure that the House will wish to pay tribute to him.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the maintenance of confidence depends upon the continuous pattern of behaviour of both the signatory powers. The agreement provides for the text to be reflected in the basic law to be introduced by the People's Republic of China. That is an important feature of the agreement. Continued participatory confidence by the United Kingdom is equally important.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In our last debate on this matter great concern was expressed on both sides of the House about the Vietnamese refugees who were living in appalling conditions in apparently permanent camps. After his visit, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman now better able to assure the House that something positive is being done about that matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is not something that arises on this statement, although it is a matter about which the

hon. Gentleman is right to be continuously concerned. I can give him no specific assurance today, but if he will put down a question or write to me I shall tell him what I can.

Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly been praised by hon. Members in all parts of the House for his achievement. I hope that he will also be encouraged by the fact that the only overt opposition to the agreement has come from Moscow and T'ai-pei. If both the political extremes are opposed to what is being done, should not the vast majority of people in the middle take pleasure in the fact that the two parties have probably got it right?
In view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to take careful note of what is being said in Hong Kong about the need for the White Paper to be rather more forthcoming than the Green Paper. Can he give us a general assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not allow ultra-conservative elements in Hong Kong to prevent the development of democratic institutions in due course?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I note my hon. Friend's advice about the way in which to judge the quality of opposition in this as in other matters.
My hon. Friend asked about the extent to which the White Paper will go beyond the Green Paper. He knows from his long experience of Hong Kong that there is a wide spread of opinion on this matter. The Government of Hong Kong have taken account of that and will bear the point in mind.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the developments in the economic zone of Shensen province in south China, where about US $450 million has been invested from Hong Kong sources as part of a total of US $2,000 million that has been promised from the same sources? Is he aware that the Chinese Government have every intention of expanding the prosperity of Hong Kong northwards to south China, to the benefit of the people of Hong Kong and of China?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is indeed the case—I am glad to hear this tribute from a Labour Member—that China is applying within its own economy measures which recognise the importance of liberalising markets and encouraging private investment from overseas. That is happening in the Shensen economic zone, and it will be interesting to see it happening alongside Hong Kong.

Mr. Roger Sims: I add my congratulations to those offered to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the much-travelled and hard-worked negotiating team, and I extend the congratulations to the Chinese team. Between them, the two teams have achieved an agreement which represents a remarkable step forward In British-Chinese relations.
I am not clear about the composition of the joint liaison group, whose head is to be a senior diplomat. Is it intended that other interests such as business and commerce will be represented? If not, can my right hon. and learned Friend say how such outside interests will be able to have some sort of input?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The composition of the liaison group has not yet been decided, but among its methods of working will be the use of sub-groups designed to deal


with particular topics. I think that the intention will be to make sure that it has available to it the people most appropriate to deal with topics under discussion.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Foreign Secretary recollect the moving statement by our ambassador in the Great Hall of the People in Peking about the legacies of the past being solved by peaceful negotiation? If we can reach agreement with the Chinese on Hong Kong, and if Argentina can reach agreement with Chile about the Beagle channel, is it beyond the wit of the two of us to reach an agreement on that other problem?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman should take careful note of the fact that the circumstances surrounding these negotiations and those surrounding the question which takes up so much of his waking time are entirely different. There are massive geographical and historical differences. The case of Hong Kong is entirely sui generis.

Mr. Hal Miller: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on both the achievement and the scope of a legally binding agreement. Does he not agree that the scope of such an agreement focuses attention on points not covered? Can he tell us whether any attention was paid during the negotiations to the position of the Eurasian population of Hong Kong, which has made such a contribution to the middle management and infrastructure of the colony, or to civil rights as they relate to such matters as conscription and family size? If so, will discussions be continued by the joint liaison group?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises three points. I hesitate to answer in the House in any general form questions about different citizenship positions, because there are so many different permutations. There is, of course, a distinction between those who are British dependent territory citizens and those who are not. Non-Chinese British dependent territory citizens will be eligible to retain appropriate status under the British Nationality Act after 1 July 1997 if they obtain a British passport or are included in one before then.
There is specific, express and extended provision for civil rights in section XIII of annex I to the agreement, including the provisions of the international covenant on civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights.
The agreement provides that defence and foreign affairs are the concern of the Chinese Government. The question of conscription is not mentioned in the agreement, but that does not mean that there will be conscription. The Chinese Government have certainly not suggested that there will be.
Public order is explicitly the responsibility of the government of the Hong Kong special administrative region.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the Foreign Secretary regard the establishment of a directly elected democratic Government as a potentially valuable safeguard of Hong Kong's continuing autonomy? If so, does he agree that it is important that that safeguard should be well established and therefore put in place as soon as possible?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is one of the factors that was borne in mind and which resulted in the inclusion of the

provision in the first annex for the Legislature to be constituted by elections. The hon. Gentleman makes the same type of point as that made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). If the Legislature is to be well established to secure the type of foundation that he has in mind, it must be developed and established, after proper consideration, on a due time scale.

Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my warmest congratulations on this brilliant piece of diplomacy and on the assurance that it gives Hong Kong for its long-term economic future? Does he agree that the agreement could herald a new era of a close relationship and understanding with China?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It is right that the agreement and the way in which it has been arrived at, by sensible and sustained consultation, is seen in China—it is by the Government—as something that could and should pave the way to increasing close and practically useful relations between our two countries.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I should like to join in the broad welcome that the agreement has been given. Although the Foreign Secretary described the support in the Legislative Council as overwhelming, will he note that two of the unofficial members found themselves unable completely to support it and therefore obliged to abstain? Bearing that in mind, is the Foreign Secretary aware that one of the areas of serious and continuing anxiety is who will draw up the basic law and what it will be? He has suggested direct Hong Kong representation in the British delegation to the joint liaison group. Will it ensure that the Hong Kong view on the content of the basic law is safeguarded, especially to allow a form of judicial review should there be conflict between the basic law and the constitution of China?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of the basic law. The agreeement provides that policies which are set out in the joint declaration and the annex will be stipulated in the basic law. I cannot give the assurance that he invites me to give as the drafting of the basic law is a matter for the Chinese Government. However, they have made it clear that the people of Hong Kong will be consulted in that process.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: May I add my voice to those who have said that this is not merely the best agreement that could have been obtained but an extremely good agreement which will enable Hong Kong to go forward with confidence on the basis of pledges from the Chinese and British Governments? That reflects great credit on my right hon. and learned Friend and his team. Perhaps I might add my voice to that of my hon. Friend who used to represent Howden——

Sir Paul Bryan: It is now Boothferry.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: He said that it is essential that we should not appear to lose interest in Hong Kong between now and 1997. It is also important that the British Council, the expansion of which is determined by the availability of money, should be given a fair hearing in decisions that are taken.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the negotiations. My hon. Friend who


used to represent and still represents Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) rightly echoed what my hon. Friend who used to represent Howden but now represents Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) said. It is important that British investors and traders should continue to have confidence in the territory. The agreement is designed to make that possible and sensible. As a result of my hon. Friend's distinguished position in the British Council, he will be aware of its activities in the territory. I appreciate the importance of its work but cannot give a pledge about Hong Kong.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: May I convey my congratulations to the Foreign Secretary and his Chinese counterpart on the brilliant achievement of the British and Chinese negotiating teams in forging this agreement? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that some of us find the contents of the Hong Kong Government's Green Paper less satisfactory and hope that when it is transformed into a White Paper it will be a good deal more realistic about the move to truly representative government in Hong Kong? The Foreign Secretary spoke as though the assessment exercise is still under way. Am I not right in thinking that the time for representations has ended and that it is the exercise of the officer examining the papers which is currently under way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, especially about my Chinese opposite number. I shall convey to the Chinese Foreign Minister the sentiments that have been expressed generally in the House about his part in the negotiations. The assessment office is continuing its work until 15 November.

Mr. Faulds: Are representations still coming in?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes. The closing date is 15 November—seven and a half weeks after 26 September. It is due to report after 15 November. There is still time for representations to be received. The hon. Gentleman echoed what others have said about the democratic pattern of government. That is not the only point of view. The Hong Kong Government will note views that are expressed here as well as in Hong Kong.

Sir John Page: Although I do not wish completely to submerge my right hon. and learned Friend

under bouquets, may I also congratulate him on the calm, careful and often secret negotiations that he has been able to conduct with his Chinese counterparts? Will there be any difficulty associated with Hong Kong remaining a member of GATT?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. One of the most important things that we wanted to achieve was the prospect of Hong Kong's continued participation in GATT and other comparable international arrangements. That is provided for in the agreement.

Mr. Robert Parry: Have the Government had any discussions with the Government of Nepal about the future of the Gurkha troops based in Hong Kong? The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the effect on the economy of Nepal of the withdrawal of the troops. Has a date for their withdrawal been set?
Will the Foreign Secretary assure us that hon. Members' questions on Hong Kong will be answered fully and openly? In response to a written question yesterday, I was refused information about the size and distribution of assets in Hong Kong. Why is there a veil of secrecy? May I have a reply to that question?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer was given after due consideration of what should or should not sensibly be disclosed about matters of that type. There are matters that ought not normally to be set out in that way.
As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, consideration has not yet been given to that matter as one of those which affect the future of the Gurkha regiment. There is still a substantial amount of time before the agreement starts to operate in 1997. Nevertheless. I note the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Healey: May I conclude this unfamiliar feast of love by saying that, although I hope that this agreement sets a precedent in other areas, the unanimous congratulations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has rightly received from both sides of the House might not quite so easily be repeated?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of that affectionate warning.

National Union of Mineworkers (Seizure of Assets)

Mr. Tony Benn: I told you a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, that I would beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation created by the decision of the court to seize the assets of the National Union of Mineworkers.
I was not able to give you notice before noon, Mr. Speaker, because the news only reached the Press Association at 2.30 pm and came on the tape during Question Time. It was therefore too late for notice to be given, but the Standing Order provides that when it is too late, provided that Mr. Speaker is told at once, it is open to him to rule or announce that he will rule later.
In support of my application, I point out that the court's decision is an unprecedented act which will be seen by those who have contributed to the NUM funds as theft. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said in a different context earlier, it will bring the law into disrepute and greatly worsen the crisis in the industry where an official strike has been in progress for seven months. It will put at risk the headquarters of the NUM in Sheffield, which I understand is subject to the sequestration order.
One hon. Member is a member of the executive of the NUM, in accordance with the practice relating to the miners parliamentary group. The European Assembly has found time to discuss the matter, but this House has not. I must repeat as clearly as I can that, as I said two days ago, there is a relationship between the tension on the

picket lines and the readiness of Parliament to discuss the greatest industrial dispute of the century. If Parliament will not discuss matters of manifest concern to people in the coal industry and in other industries and to those who cannot get coal, that will certainly bring the House into disrepute.
I strongly urge you, Mr. Speaker, to follow your judgment and to allow us to debate the matter before the new Session.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation created by the decision of the court to seize the assets of the National Union of Mineworkers.
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member said. I am bound by Standing Orders and I regret that I do not consider that the matters that he has raised fall within the Standing Orders as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) mentioned that an hon. Member is a member of the national executive committee of the NUM. Can you advise the House and, through us, the courts whether the hon. Member concerned would enjoy the immunities normally enjoyed by hon. Members if the courts take action to further the sequestration order made today?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question relates to a decision of the courts. I will look into the matter and report to the House.

Orders of the Day — Police and Criminal Evidence Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

POWER OF CONSTABLE TO STOP AND SEARCH PERSONS, VEHICLES ETC

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 7, after "constable" insert "in uniform".

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Bill as introduced into Parliament, and as passed by this House, gave effect to the Phillips Royal Commission's recommendation that powers of stop and search should not be restricted to police officers in uniform. It was decided in another place that the powers conferred by the Bill should be so restricted. That decision was taken against the Government's very strong advice, and we continue to believe that it would seriously and unnecessarily fetter the ability of the police to deal with street crime and burglary.
The Phillips commission made its thoughts on this matter quite clear. Paragraph 3.22 of the report said:
We considered whether the power to stop and search persons should be available only to a constable in uniform, and one of us favours this. Clear identification as a police constable is necessary to avoid misunderstanding, friction, and, later, disputes. We accept this as a principle but do not believe the wearing of uniform essential to its attainment in practice. The police officer should take the necessary steps to ensure that the person whom he has stopped has his name and number.
Exactly so; and that is why clause 2(2)(i) places a duty on a plain clothes officer, before he undertakes a search, to produce his warrant card to identify himself as a police officer. If he does not do so, the search will be unlawful, and may lawfully be resisted.
It was suggested in another place, as it was when this issue was debated in Committee here, that plain clothes officers might be mistaken for muggers, and that the Bill would create the possibility of uncertainty and conflict on the streets. But this suggestion ignores the fact that powers of search, which are already on the statute book and which may be exercised by plain clothes as well as uniformed officers, have not given rise to this kind of problem. There is no evidence that either the results obtained or the effects on relations between police and public differ according to whether the officer concerned is in uniform. If there have been isolated cases of misunderstanding, the clause 2 safeguards recommended by the Royal Commission are more than sufficient to deal with them.
The recent Policy Studies Institute report on the Metropolitan police found that 93 per cent. of stops were made by officers in uniform, 5 per cent. by officers in plain clothes and 2 per cent. by uniformed and plain clothes officers acting together. Those figures do not suggest that excessive use is made of their present powers by plain clothes officers. But the 5 per cent. in question is important in terms of the ability of the police to deal with the kinds of offence for which powers of stop and search

are particularly useful to them. This is, of course, because plain clothes officers can keep observation and patrol inconspicuously. It would make no sense if they then lacked powers that they were in a particularly good position to exercise.
It is, for example, well known that shop theft and pickpocketing are major problems in the Oxford street area. One important part of the police strategy for controlling and detecting such crime is the deployment of plain clothes officers. A plain clothes officer who reasonably suspects someone of carrying stolen goods or articles intended for use in offences of theft or deception should surely be able to stop and search him, subject to the usual safeguards, in exactly the same way as a uniformed colleague. If he lacked this power, he would have either to let the person who had aroused his suspicions walk away, or fall back upon his powers of arrest. The former would be a breach of duty; and the trouble with the latter is that many arrests will be made which a quick negative search would have avoided. That would hardly be a result which was conducive to police effectiveness or good community relations.
In short, we can see no case for agreeing to the amendment, which departs from the Royal Commission's express recommendations.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: It has been suggested here and in another place that the powers of stop and search included in the Bill are those that existed previously in London, but were not needed in other parts of the country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill seeks to apply the London power throughout the whole country? That has been the basic argument against the provision.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that much of the Bill and many of the powers are deliberately designed to provide properly co-ordinated arrangements throughout the country. Many aspects of stop and search are ludicrously different in various parts of the country.
Surely the plain clothes officer has a crucial part to play in detecting and helping to prevent crime on the streets. It would be sensible that the power in the Bill should not be confined to officers in uniform.
The Lords amendment introduces a strange anomaly because it applies only to the powers in the Bill. Yet there are already powers on the statute book, including those relating to drugs and firearms, that may continue to be exercised by uniformed and plain clothes officers alike. That anomaly is indefensible and I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary and harmful.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I welcome the Minister to his duties at the Home Office, but I had better warn him that we get through Ministers of State at the Home Office at quite a rate, and the length of time that he will remain there cannot be guaranteed. The hon. Gentleman read very eloquently from his brief, but his knowledge to date seems about the same as his predecessor's when he left for the Northern Ireland Office.
We are talking about a power that in the best of circumstances is open to abuse. Indeed, that is widely agreed upon. One strongly held view on the topic of stop and search states:
Statistics on the use to date of powers of stop and search indicate that in most cases no such article"—
that is, an article of a particular kind being looked for—


is found, and there is strong evidence that on many occasions these powers have been used where reasonable grounds to suspect the individual concerned of having the article in question on him did not in fact exist. There is also strong evidence that such misuse plays an important part in mistrust of the police among such sections of the community.
That is the view of stop and search that is in the draft code of practice on the excercise of those powers, which has been issued by the Home Office in connection with the Bill. Therefore, everyone acknowledges that the power of stop and search is dangerous, and should be used only in a rational way.
It has been pointed out that that power has existed in the Metropolitan and other police areas, but it should be remembered that the power as originally introduced into the Metropolitan police area was very specific and limited. It came under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and its aim was to deal with goods in transit at a time when London and other big cities were prey to rogues and vagabonds of various kinds. The whole purpose of the original Act, under which the stop and search power in London is being deployed, was, as the original Act says, that any person reasonably suspected of having or conveying in any manner any stolen or unlawfully obtained goods could be stopped and searched by a police officer.
Over a century and a half that power has been expanded in London to the extent that it is now used for a wide range of purposes. As we know from the report of the Policy Studies Institute, to which reference has been made, there are now about 1 million stops in London alone. We are dealing with the exercise of those powers—which the Home Office itself says are misused—not by a constable in uniform who is clearly identifiable and who has a number that can be taken down by anybody who has a complaint that he wishes to put, but by someone in plain clothes.
When people talk about a plain clothes policeman, I suspect that they imagine someone dressed in what one might call plain clothes police standard issue: double breasted suit, big black shoes and, if the weather is a bit cold, perhaps a white belted raincoat. But that is not the sort of plain clothes in which the police dress. Let us consider the sort of plain clothes that the police now wear: very tight blue jeans, an open-necked shirt, black jacket and training shoes, and a chain around the neck. That is how a plain clothes policeman who appeared in court last week described the clothes that he would wear any day. He described them as plain clothes, although they seem far from plain to me.
It is clear that if someone young dressed like that accosted a person late at night in a street in my, or any other, constituency, that person might run away or anticipate a potential assault in a violent manner.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: I do welcome the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hogg: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point about plain clothes officers dressed in that way, but that objection would also apply to a plain clothes officer dressed in that way who was seeking to make an ordinary arrest. There is no real distinction between the two.

Mr. Kaufman: There is a distinction between the two, and I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, who did his

59 sittings with the rest of us, should have forgotten. Arrest is a different matter. Arrest is something undertaken only with a due sense of responsibility, because wrongful arrest is a dangerous thing to indulge in. We are talking about stop and search, and between 7 million and 8 million people will be subjected to it every year when the Bill is enacted. So there is a very great difference.
If someone dressed in what one might call the customary casual dress of the mid-1980s accosted a man or woman late at night, that person might well believe that he was going to be attacked. He might well run away, or decide that the best thing to do is to get in first and thump the man. However, if the person accosted did either of those things he would then be liable to arrest. That arrest, of course, would then add to the threadbare statistics that are being quoted by the Government to justify stop and search.
I shall cite an example that has been supplied to me. It involves the case of a Mr. Derik Donaldson. He was driving his car in Notting Hill, near his home, and was followed by plain clothes officers in an unmarked car. They shouted to him to stop. He thought that he was being pursued by people who may have wanted to attack him. In this violent era with, under this Government, record crime figures, that is not very surprising. However, he refused to stop, drove to his mother's house and jumped out of his car. The officers then got out of their car and attempted to apprehend him. There was a struggle in which it appears that the identity of the officers was mentioned. Mr. Donaldson was charged with assault. The police had made their arrest—the sort of arrest that we will find for the sort of offence that will be detected in order to justify stop and search. However, Mr. Donaldson was acquitted and the judge criticised the officers for making stops and searches without specific suspicion of a defined offence.

Mr. David Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend have any statistics about the assaults on police officers that have occurred when stops and searches are carried out by them when they are not in unifirm? In the courts I have often found that is exactly the same sort of situation that has occurred.

Mr. Kaufman: If it will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman, may I say that, judging by what he has said throughout the Bill's passage, I welcome him calling me his right hon. Friend. His approach to the Bill has been creditable to a degree. However, I do not have the statistics. In a moment I shall deal with the problem of statistics in relation to this power which is to be conferred on the police.
The Minister, Lord Elton, said that under the Bill the person concerned must identify himself right away. But such identification might come too late. Split seconds are involved. If one is approached by a man late at night, one may well decide not to wait and see whether by any chance the man in tight blue jeans and necklace is a police officer trying to stop and search one. One may decide to react. It is not easy for a plain clothes police officer to establish his authority immediately. A warrant card is usually produced for a split second. It may or may not be believed or understood. Can any hon. Member guarantee that he would accept it? During the first vital seconds, all this causes fear and apprehension in the person stopped,


particularly in a secluded spot late at night. The constable might be viewed, reasonably, as an attacker or at least a person to be avoided.
5 pm
A procedure is set out in the code of practice, but who is to say that when such activities are taking place the procedure will be followed? The Minister of State quoted the Policy Studies Institute report, so he must accept the validity of that authoritative document. The report, which says that in the metropolitan area the procedure is often ignored, states:
It is clear from the way that police officers talk about stops that the question of what their legal powers may be does not enter into their decision-making except in the case of rare individuals.
That is a serious criticism in a document commissioned by the Metropolitan police. The report continues:
They do, of course, consider the chance of getting a result, but factors that they associate with the chance of getting a result are often unconnected with any concept of reasonable suspicion.
Recent cases confirm that.
One reason why the legal powers have little relevance is that most people do not know what they are. We never saw anyone openly challenge the right of the police to stop, search and question them, nor did anyone ever refuse to answer questions.
That is important, because the contents of the 1984 Act will not be in the minds of my young West Indian constituents who may be subjected to stop and search. The PSI report makes it clear that two thirds of all stops in metropolitan London are of West Indian boys and young men between the ages of 15 and 24. They will not know their rights. They will not know that the person who stops them has to produce identification. They will either accept what takes place or resist. Either way they are likely to be in trouble.
We are told that the safeguards are now different and that we have a code of practice. That code of practice is much to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). Without his amendment there would be no code of practice and without his constituency Labour party there would be no amendment. This is an excellent example of Labour party democracy in practice.
Who is to say that the code of practice will be used? 'The PSI report says that the existing safeguards are not observed in many instances. One of the reasons that it gives is:
Consequences for individual police officers, where they were shown to have exceeded their powers in stopping and searching people or vehicles, would probably not be very serious. That being so, there is an incentive for police officers to exceed their powers.
The PSI report says that the penalty for not observing the existing rule is not great enough to ensure the observance of it. The safeguards are not worth the paper on which they will be printed.
What is it all for? The PSI report states that of the 1 million stops in London, which we can extrapolate to the rest of the country, only 3 per cent. result in arrests. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) asked me what statistics I had. We do not have statistics on this matter. Thanks to the PSI, we know that 3 per cent. of stops result in arrest, but we do not know how many arrests result in charges or how many charges result in convictions. By definition, 3 per cent. or less must be involved.

Mr. Ashby: Does the right hon. Gentleman know how many charges relate to the stop itself? I think of an assault rather than an offence which is discovered in the search.

Mr. Kaufman: Because of the hon. Gentleman's experience he always asks the right questions. Sometimes charges result not in connection with the reason for the stop—which is usually to look for stolen goods or weapons to be used in a crime—but in connection with traffic offences which are discovered incidentally. The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the truth.
The results in terms of apprehension and the punishment of crime from stop and search powers are minuscule. Although the outcome in terms of protecting the community is so minute as to be scarcely worth considering, we are introducing a power under which every year between 7 million and 8 million people will be stopped.
The Minister told us how many stops were undertaken by plain clothes officers currently. We cannot extrapolate those statistics because we are talking about a power which is to be extended to areas which have never had it before. Once we give these men in their blue jeans and necklaces the right to stop and search, they may decide to take greater advantage of it because Parliament has given them extra power.
The amendment is sensible and useful. It was supported in the House of Lords by many peers who are not members of the Labour or Liberal parties, who have no party allegiance or who are even Conservatives, such as Lady Macleod. The amendment would eliminate some of the worst abuses. It would do no more than that. We believe that it should be retained. We shall therefore vote against the Government.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the Home Office and to the Bill. I am sorry that the previous Minister of State has had to go elsewhere although I congratulate him on his elevation. We are fortunate to have my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) as one of the ministerial team at the Home Office to help us with our deliberations.
In the presence of the Home Secretary I should also like to welcome the fact that the Government are sticking to their principles and standing on their policy in respect of this important amendment. With possibly one other hon. Member, I served on the Bill through all its painful progress. When this amendment was produced in the first Standing Committee, Ministers rightly demonstrated, as I shall, how absurd it would be to limit the power to search to officers in uniform. The Government, on a whipped vote, rejected it.
During the second Standing Committee the Opposition again made the same proposition, and again on a whipped vote it was rejected. It must be right when precisely the same proposal comes from the other place for the Government to stand firm on their principles and on their policy and, on a whipped vote, carry what they believe to be right for the police service.
I make that point at the outset because I think it right that a Government should stand by their policy and principles. I shall ask the Government to do so on all the amendments before the House. I am entitled to do that because I have not stood on my head at any time—[Interruption.] The Opposition might be wise to allow small internal matters on the Conservative Benches to be fully developed. I cannot understand why they should wish to interrupt a little local difficulty on this side of the House.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), as I always do. He has been consistent in his arguments, as I have been in mine, throughout the passage of the Bill. One objection to preventing police officers not in uniform from doing their duty on stop and search is that that would put 25 per cent. of our police officers out of action in the stopping of suspects on the street. My advice is that officers on duty, but not in uniform, amount to a quarter of the force.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, bearing in mind the need to preserve good police-public relations, it is sufficient to allow the 25 per cent. of police officers in plain clothes to exercise their power to arrest only if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence is being committed? Does he further agree that to enable 75 per cent. of our police force to stop and search is more than adequate?

Mr. Griffiths: No, I do not agree. Indeed, we need more rather than fewer policemen to deal with the tide of crime that we now face. To remove 25 per cent. of the effective police strength at any one time would be absurd. No police officer is ever technically off duty. Although police officers usually work seven or eight hours a day—unless they are in the CID, when they may work longer hours—when they go about their business off duty they still have a responsibility laid upon them by this House and the law, under that oath of office and under their discipline code, so that if an offence appears to be committed, or is likely to be committed, or the Queen's peace put at risk, they have a duty to seek to uphold the law, and must do so.
Whether or not a police officer is in uniform is immaterial. For example, a police officer may not be in uniform because he has just come off duty and hung up his uniform on a peg in the police station. While he is going home he may see in the street someone who bears a very real resemblance to a wanted criminal who has committed a serious assault, rape, an act of terrorism or murder. He has a duty to stop that person and ascertain whether he is a wanted criminal. He may not wish to arrest him, but only to stop him.
If such a police officer faced someone whom he felt it right to stop and question, or perhaps to stop and search, if he had to be in uniform he would be in the absurd position of having to say to that person, "Excuse me, Sir, do you mind if I go back to the police station to put on my uniform so that, under the Act, I can stop and question you?" That is an absurdity and everyone knows it, but a police officer could be placed in that position if the amendment were carried.

Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is seriously misleading the House. If the amendment were carried it would not remove the right of a police officer in plain clothes to search for drugs, firearms and items connected with terrorism. Therefore, everything that the hon. Gentleman said has been misleading. The only powers that the amendment would affect are the extended powers of stop and search created by the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Lady had been listening, she would have heard me use the words murder and rape.

Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman said "terrorism".

Mr. Griffiths: I did not use the word terrorism; I used the words rape, murder and serious crime.
A police officer cannot remove himself from the duty that this House has laid upon him simply because he is not wearing a uniform. He must carry out his duty. If the amendment were carried he could be disciplined for not carrying out a wide range of duties which he would be prevented by the Bill from carrying out.
I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Gorton about police officers dressed in the fashion that he described, perhaps on a dark evening. That is why the Government have been wise to include in the Bill the safeguards proposed by the Royal Commission. It is essential to note that a police officer in plain clothes would have to do all the things set out in clause 2. I believe this to be the first time that it has been set out in a statute.
The police officer would have to tell the person whom he wished to stop and search his name and the name of the police station to which he was attached. Before he performed any search, he would have to tell the person the object of the search and give his grounds for proposing to do so. He would have to have regard to the other safeguards in the clause, among them the important new safeguard that he must make a record, which must be available to the person who has been stopped and searched during the statutory period provided.
Those are very real safeguards. Their effect is what the Royal Commission proposed and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has always maintained, namely, that wherever a new power is provided, it is balanced by a safeguard. In this case, there are a whole series of safeguards.
The amount of paper work and additional operational problems that will be created by the safeguards—which mean that a police officer, often in difficult circumstances in the street, must provide all that information—will present some real difficulties. However, the Government have included the safeguards to maintain a balance. When the other place considered the matter, it simply did not recognise those safeguards.
The right hon. Gentleman fairly said that there is always the danger that, although the police will seek—and I assure him that they will—to fulfill those safeguards, there will be times when that does not happen. For one reason or another, there may be a misunderstanding. It is important that the House should appreciate the documentary evidence which a police officer henceforth will have to present to anyone when he wishes to stop and search. I refer to the warrant card. I have one with me, and it is important that the House and the country should recognise that it is not simply a bit of paper that can be flashed. The warrant has on it a photograph of the police officer concerned, and if he does not look like his photograph——

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the police warrant card looks distinctly like a London Transport photocard or a Member of Parliament's photocard, or hundreds of other photocards with which one is provided?

Mr. Griffiths: I could not agree to that. The Member of Parliament's card has a distinctive appearance.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Member of Parliament's photocard has a distinctive appearance only to those who know what its distinctive appearance is? Most of us have never seen a police officer's warrant card. The fact that the hon. Gentleman produces that card in the House means nothing. We take his word for it that it is a warrant card, but somebody stopped in the street might say, "Pull the other one." Why should that person believe the officer?

Mr. Griffiths: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's scepticism, but he must look at the amendment in the context of the safeguards that are provided. One of the safeguards about which he was sceptical was the requirement on the police to provide documentary evidence of their status, as proof that they are police officers attached to a particular force or station. The warrant card has the advantage that it has a photograph, and it also has the signature of the officer in question.- It is open to anyone, if he wishes to throw doubt on the warrant card, to challenge the officer to sign his name. I realise that in the real world it is unlikely that that would take place, hut, nevertheless, that must be recognised.
In addition, the warrant card contains the signature of a senior officer—I do not know whether it is the chief constable—of each force. The warrant card is as good a piece of documentary evidence to establish the identity of the officer as it is reasonable to expect. Therefore, for the reason that I gave at the beginning—that it is right that the Government should stick to their principles and their guns—I hope that the House will go along with my hon. Friend's——

Mr. Bermingham: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if a mistake is made ab initio, regardless of what happens elsewhere, we should stick to the mistake ab initio? That seems to be the tenor of his argument.

Mr. Griffiths: I wish the Government to stick, not to their mistakes, but to their proper and sensible conclusions, and the clause as it stands, without amendment, is one of them. The amendment proposed by their Lordships would make nonsense of effective operational policing and should not pass.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I welcome the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) to his new post in the Home Office. Like his predecessor, he is already showing the skill to stonewall skilfully, despite his late entry into the match.
It is important to have a proper perspective of the powers contained in clause 1. Even without the stop and search powers in clause 1, plain clothes police officers in England and Wales have considerable powers, as has already been said. They have the power to stop and search for controlled drugs, for firearms, for items connected with terrorism and, incidentally, also for eggs of certain protected birds. Leaving the last category aside, because it comes in a special sector, those are extensive stop and search powers; and they are not anomalous, contrary to what the Minister said.
Those powers were placed on the statute book for the specific reason of dealing with particular problems that were arising in the streets of the country. They were placed on the statute book as they were, not as anomalies, but as acts of good sense to counter those problems. It is wrong for the Government to seek to extend such a coercive

power, one that involves severe interference with the liberty of the individual to walk in our streets, by introducing it across the country.
It is important to remind oneself that the stop and search powers in clause 1 are not the same as the power of arrest. That power will continue. In his arguments the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) reduced the issue to an absurdity. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who made a fine contribution in Committee, I suspect that an average custody officer could have made a better job of arguing the case than he did.
Can one really believe, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that a police officer suspecting reasonably that someone had committed the crime of murder or rape would even think about using merely stop and search powers? He would not—he would arrest. The hon. Gentleman drew our attention to the requirements placed by the Bill on the officer stopping and searching. If the officer were seeking to use the stop and search powers, he would be required to go through all those requirements; and in any event he would not be permitted to stop and search on suspicion of murder under the power in the Bill unless he had reason for suspecting that the person being stopped and searched had prohibited articles or stolen goods in his possession.
I suspect that one of the reasons for the extension of the stop and search power in the Bill, and in particular for the Government's desire to give the power throughout the country to plain clothes police officers, is to make up in some way for the continuing shortage not so much of police officers as of uniformed police officers on the beat in the community. It is now conventional wisdom, and right, that the best way to prevent the crimes mentioned in clauses 1 and 2 is by putting uniformed police officers known to the community on the beat. In particular, young people do not commit offences such as theft from motor cars or carrying offensive weapons when they know that there are policemen ever on the beat nearby.
We have to bear in mind, too, that in most of the towns of England and Wales, and in all the country areas, the power being created by clause 1—that of stop and search—is an entirely new power. The people in those communities have not been accustomed to dealing with such a power. Its very introduction in those areas creates a considerable risk of tension between the community and the police.
There is also the problem of the way in which the power is used. There is a great deal of evidence, though much of it discursive, about the use of the power. We have already heard some of the evidence from the PSI report. There is some evidence in Lord Scarman's report on the Brixton disorders, albeit mentioned in passing. There is also evidence from another and distinguished document, which has not yet been mentioned. That is a detailed survey, carried out earlier this year in the London borough of Hillingdon by Dr. Vorhaus.
I shall summarise the way in which the powers are used where they have been available. The evidence points to their having been used almost exclusively, and certainly primarily, against young people, black people and oddly dressed people. In her study, Dr. Vorhaus said that the study of attitudes to stop and search among juveniles in Hillingdon showed that 52 per cent. of the juveniles questioned had been stopped and searched by the police. Although it is a surprisingly high figure, it is consistent with what has been reported by the PSI. She added that


whereas a notable characteristic of the sample was their pro-police and pro-law and order outlook, the experience of being stopped seemed to have a strong negative influence. It appeared to make juveniles hostile towards the police and alienated them from the law.
Among the 52 per cent. of the juveniles in Hillingdon who were stopped and searched, she found the feeling that it was a bad experience subjectively. She found, too, that it had the consequence, possibly for a long time to come, of setting those juveniles against the police and even the law itself.
5.30 pm
It is right, too, to remind the House that in paragraph 4.67 of his report on the Brixton disorders Lord Scarman observed that
stop and search operations in particular require courtesy and carefully controlled behaviour by the police to those stopped.
We should be aiming to ensure that whatever stop and search powers are produced by the Bill meet Lord Scarman's recommendation that they should be courteously and carefully controlled.
I suggest that we can be assured that such powers are carefully controlled and, we hope, courteously implemented only if they are limited to police officers in uniform. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned the case of Mr. Derik Donaldson. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said that he had come across many other such cases in his experience as a practising lawyer. There cannot be many practising lawyers in this place who have not come across a similar state of affairs.
An even worse situation than that which faced Mr. Donaldson is often encountered by young and perhaps fancily dressed women in London who find themselves being accosted by quite fearsome looking plain clothes police officers who wish to stop and search them. We recognise and accept that police officers have to indulge in verisimilitude if they are to detect crime. We accept the need for criminal intelligence, and those of us who have seen many plain clothes police officers have recognised that they are bound to acquire extraordinary hairstyles, tight torn jeans, as has been mentioned in a case recently, and other similar clothing. They sometimes look extremely unpleasant.
A young woman faced with a request, however polite, to be stopped and searched by a plain clothes police officer dressed in that way is entitled to be afraid and to take to her heels. If she is handled by a police officer in those circumstances, she is entitled to use violence to escape from him, even though he may be saying that he is a police officer. Young women often face risk in our city streets and it would be unreasonable to require of them a different standard in respect of plain clothes police officers from that which we would expect of them in respect of any other ordinarily dressed young man.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The arguments which the hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced are equally applicable to those cases in which plain clothes police officers can stop and search for drugs or firearms. He has already said that he applauds the introduction of those powers.

Mr. Carlile: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that matter to my attention. Those of us who believe in a liberal society believe in a free society subject

to constraints. We must examine those constraints carefully before they are placed. Sometimes constraints have to be placed upon society in the public interest. The examples to which I referred with approval earlier are constraints which we accept as being required in the public interest. The constraint that is now required by the Government is, in my judgment, not in the public interest.
Plain clothes officers' powers to arrest are not affected by the amendment that was accepted in another place. That amendment had the support of some distinguished and experienced lawyers, not least a former Lord Chancellor, who moved the amendment on behalf of the Opposition, and my noble and learned predecessor, Lord Hooson, who has enormous experience of practising the criminal law throughout England and Wales. They are two examples of the experience that was brought to bear on the amendment when it was discussed in another place. With that in mind, I ask the House to accept that the balance of public and private interest achieved by the requirement that the police should be in uniform is a proper one, and that it should vote against the Government's proposal.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that this is a matter of balance. Reasonable arguments could be advanced from both sides on this issue. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who introduced the Opposition's view, rested his case primarily on the assertion that the informality of the clothes worn by plain clothes police officers might be such as to make the exercise of the powers either difficult or unreliable. That, in substance, is the argument that the Labour party has deployed on this issue.
As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has said, this is a matter of balance. We have been reminded that there are many instances where plain clothes officers already possess the power to arrest or the power to stop and search—for example, terrorism, firearms or drugs. I have no doubt that, in theory at least, the informality of the dress of plain clothes police officers could cause problems. Yet in the past Parliament has decided to introduce legislative powers and I do not think that they have been the subject of substantial complaint thereafter.
The power of the plain clothes police officer is set out by limitation in the Bill. He can exercise the power only if the circumstances that are prescribed in clause 1 arise. He can exercise the power lawfully only if he complies with the statutory requirements that are set out in clause 2. If he does not comply with those requirements, he commits an assault and he is, in theory at least, liable in damages.
The issue is one of balance. I am not trying to say that what the right hon. Member for Gorton and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery have argued is absurd. However, there must be occasions when to deny a plain clothes police officer the right to exercise the power under clause 1 would be to prevent him either preventing crime or apprehending a criminal. As a matter of balance, the Government have it right and I support them.

Mr. Bermingham: I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). Those of us who sat through the 59 sittings in Committee noted his silence in his then capacity as a Government Whip but suspected that that silence was the result of restraint. The hon. Gentleman makes the good point that we are discussing a


matter of balance. Surely no one would disagree that it is always a question of balance in these matters. However, perhaps the evidence should be tested dispassionately.
When the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made what might be described as almost an impassioned contribution, he took the argument into the ridiculous and the absurd and missed the point. That is why I intervened in his speech to ask him whether, if it was thought that a mistake had been made ab initio, it would not be wiser to listen to the counsel of others before enshrining the mistake in tablets of stone, as it were, by incorporating it in an Act of Parliament.
This is a matter of balance, and there is considerable evidence to show that the House should go along with the Lords amendment. That has been said by the Opposition on numerous occasions in the Chamber, in Committee and in many parts of the country. A number of police officers would not be averse to the arguments on this subject put during the past year by me and by many others. This is a matter of balance. At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves whether the power to stop and search given to officers not in uniform will enhance the police service and its powers of detection or whether it will detract from the service and increase the friction that regrettably exists so often between the general public and the police.
The point that we are debating is perhaps best and crucially demonstrated in the Policy Studies Institute report. That report showed that, of the 1 million stops and searches in the capital in the year under review, 95 per cent. were carried out by officers in uniform and 5 per cent. by plain clothes officers. Of those 1 million stops and searches, only 3 per cent., or 30,000, led to the next stage, which might have been arrest. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) asked how many of those 30,000 arrests resulted from the findings of the stop and search, the fracas that occurred because of the stop and search or some trivial point that was later used to justify the stop and search. The answer is that none of us knows the facts accurately, but those who have had experience in metropolitan and other areas where those powers of stop and search exist know that often charges of threatening behaviour or assault on a police constable are laid or some nefarious traffic matter is cited. That is the way in which stop and search is thought to be carried out. The vast number of contacts between the police and the public under the provisions of stop and search powers result in no charges being laid.
We must consider the other side of the coin. The powers of stop and search may be extended to the whole country, as they are being extended to constables in uniform. Parts of the country do not have the stop and search powers of London and the Metropolitan police force area. During the past 150 years the rest of the country has got on very well detecting crime without such powers. Those powers have not been needed in rural Derbyshire or Leicestershire, parts of South Yorkshire or other such places. On many occasions the stop and search powers are counterproductive, because in cases of serious crime—for example, drug trafficking, terrorism, murder and rape—a police officer has more than adequate powers in criminal law to carry out his duties.
Suggestions have been made that if the provisions of clause 1 were extended to the country as a whole, approximately 7 million or 8 million stops and searches a year would occur. If stop and search is to continue in the same proportion as that found by the PSI in its

investigation—95 per cent. of stops and searches being carried out by officers in uniform and 5 per cent. by officers in plain clothes—we must ask why so many people are worried about that 5 per cent. The answer to that question is known to most practical and practising lawyers—that the 5 per cent. of stops and searches give rise to problems associated with the issue of assault. With the best will in the world, I cannot honestly say with my hand on my heart that I believe that the provisions of clause 2 will be followed meticulously if this power comes into force. The reality is that the man in blue jeans—plain clothes officers do not always wear blue jeans; I have seen them wearing many other things over the years—flashes his warrant card. We have already had a demonstration of how little that means. Most people do not know what a bank card is, let alone a warrant card. These days if someone flashes anything in front of anyone else he is likely to think that that person is up to no good.
Even if all the pedantic steps of clause 2 were taken into account, a problem would still exist. The problem concerns the person in the street being approached by someone who asks questions and says, "You must do this". If approached by a person in uniform, the natural reaction of members of the public is to co-operate. That happens with the vast majority of requests made by police officers. If approached by someone not in uniform., the natural reaction is to be wary. We are all conditioned by what we read in the newspapers and watch on television day in, day out. We see members of the public approached by people who have no good intentions towards them. Frankly, if someone comes up to me in a street late at night, my first and natural reaction is to get out of the way. In the past few years, too many horrific things have happened late at night in the streets of our cities and in our rural areas. That is the point at which problems will begin to arise when this power is extended.
5.45 pm
If the police service is to succeed, it requires the public's co-operation and assistance. The PSI report clearly showed that an extensive power to stop and search, with 1 million people stopped every year and only 3 per cent. of the stops and searches justified at a later stage, resulted in 97 per cent. of people taking offence. ft is suggested that we should extend that power to the whole country, so that 7 million to 8 million people a year will be stopped and searched. That means that 97 per cent. of those people may take offence at being stopped and searched—never mind those within the 3 per cent. who take offence because they have been stopped by someone dressed up as a thug. I regret to say that my experience is that on occasions plain clothes officers have dressed in no better fashion than many of those they were supposed to be apprehending. It does the police service no good for its plain clothes officers to be dressed in the way that has been described and seen on a number of occasions.
The more the public is upset, the more its co-operation decreases. Regrettably, that will be the increasing result of the Government's attempts to overturn the amendment. The amendment is sensible because it recognises the balance between the need to detect crime and to elicit the co-operation of the general public. I hope that at this last moment the Government will think again, if for no other reason than that policing needs the public's co-operation if it is to succeed.
Let us get out of our trenches of party politics. The Government should listen not only to the Opposition's arguments but to what was said by those in the other place and the commentators outside this place who have experience of these matters. Time and again, they have said that if a person is approached in the street by a man or woman in uniform, the public recognise that authority is requesting assistance. People do not object to being asked for assistance. If people are approached by someone who, in the first moment of contact, is not readily identified as a police officer, resentment begins to grow.
The PSI report has shown that a considerable number of people have been offended by the way in which a stop and search has been conducted. When people feel offended by authority, their willingness on another occasion to co-operate with authority is diminished. Are the Government really asking that 7 million or 8 million stops and searches should take place in a year? If so, they are asking for a decrease in co-operation between the police and the public, and that can only be to the detriment of society.

Mr. Ashby: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that this is very much a matter of balance. The stop and search power is necessary for the police, but it must be used sparingly and, as Lord Scarman said, with a great deal of tact. The other place has tried hard to introduce that element of tact by saying that stops and searches must be carried out by a police officer in uniform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said that 25 per cent. of police officers may be out of uniform at any one time. If that is the figure, and I have no reason not to accept it, there must be occasions when a stop and search is necessary and the police officer is out of uniform. That gives rise immediately to the problems which have been so carefully explained to us by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who referred to the case of Derik Donaldson. I intervened because on many occasions I have represented people who have said that they thought that the people who had approached them were thugs. Invariably, on those occasions I have been defending people who have been charged with assault on police officers.
I accept that there is a need for a stop and search power and that there will be occasions when it will be carried out by officers who are not in uniform. It would be unfortunate if that stop and search were found to be illegal. I should like safeguards to be introduced, because we have pinpointed the problem that offences arise out of the stop and search. Those are not offences of having an offensive weapon, possessing drugs or any offence, however trivial, which is the reason for the stop and search, but offences that arise out of the stop itself. Those offences are invariably of obstructing the police or assault on the police.
People with no previous convictions have often been charged and convicted of assault on police officers. The evidence in the case is invariably of a police officer saying, "I produced a warrant card." There is no reason to disbelieve that, but why should people who have never been in trouble before start fighting a police officer who has produced a warrant card? They were not hiding drugs

or offensive weapons, and therefore the only logical reason for it is that there was a misunderstanding between the two parties.
I should like safeguards introduced so that cases in which an offence arises out of a stop and search are referred to someone else before prosecution. If we are talking about a figure of 3 per cent.—30,000—which may rise because this provision will cover the country, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said, and assuming that a large proportion of those offences will not have arisen out of the stop and search—such as hiding something that was found during the stop and search—we are not talking about a large number of cases.
I should like all the cases of assault and obstructing the police that arise out of stop and search referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions before a prosecution is instituted. There would then be a safeguard and I should be able to support the Government in opposing the amendment with a happier conscience. That is why I am asking for the safeguard which would please so many of us.

Mr. Max Madden: I have to report to the House that I have been stopped and searched twice by the police. On both occasions the policeman was dressed in uniform and it was in daylight. On the first occasion the police constable insisted that I empty my bag, which contained a large amount of dirty washing, on to the pavement and replace the dirty washing in it before proceeding on my way to the launderette. On the second occasion the police officer showed considerable curiosity about why I should be carrying an empty suitcase. I am glad to say that that was some years ago. Nevertheless, it left me at the time, and subsequently, with the same feeling as 40 out of every 100 Londoners had when they were surveyed after being stopped and searched by police—that there was no good reason for the police to stop and search them.
Had I been a little younger, I am sure that my view would probably have been that which has already been expressed as the view of more than half the teenagers in Hillingdon who, after being stopped and searched by the police, were transformed into being anti-police and anti-law from being pro-police and pro-law.
In his impassioned speech the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the rising tide of crime. Over the years we have all witnessed that rising tide with considerable anxiety. Today, as on all other occasions, the House must be interested in how society and the police combat crime effectively. My worry, which is one which has been voiced by a number of hon. Members today, is that the extensive new powers for the police to stop and search will be counter-productive and will do nothing to improve the level of crime detection which, unhappily, is extremely low in many parts of the country, particularly London. They will do nothing to improve relations between the general public and the police, which many of us believe are at the core of trying to combat the rising tide of crime.
We are aware from the figures that extensive powers of stop and search result in a minimal level of arrest. It is clear that if the stop and search powers are introduced they will do nothing to combat crime effectively. They will,


however, I fear, do a great deal to alienate further large sections of the community; in particular, the young whites, blacks and Asians.
I represent a consitituency which has a large ethnic community. Many members of that community are already extremely worried by the level of racial harassment which they, their parents and families face. I ask the House to try to imagine the position in Bradford late at night in a community which feels great anxiety about racial attacks against and harassment of black and Asian British people if a young casually dressed white seeks to stop a young black or Asian for the purposes that we have been discussing. There will inevitably be a suspicion in the mind of that young black or Asian that the person who is seeking to stop him is not a detective seeking to combat crime in Bradford, but is possibly seeking to attack him or her. This is not a question of balance as some hon. Members have sought to argue.
I plead with the House to consider whether the amendment will serve the best interests of our communities. Will it effectively combat crime and will it improve relationships between the police and the community? In my view, it will not.
6 pm
I also invite the House to consider some of the views advanced by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds when he waxed eloquent about the warrant cards which will be carried by detectives wearing casual clothes and seeking to stop and search individuals. What will be the situation, for example, for many of my constituents who do not speak English well? How will they easily understand that the persons seeking to stop them—persons who they think may be seeking to attack them—in reality are police officers seeking to combat crime in my constituency?
It is nonsense. It is a recipe for increased racial tension in my community and many others. For that reason, I agree with the amendment accepted in the other place and with the views expressed by a former Lord Chancellor. I am fundamentally opposed to stop and search powers because I do not believe that there is a need for them. What is more, they will be counter-productive and will not effectively reverse the tide of crime about which we are all concerned. However, if we are to have the powers, they should be limited to police constables in uniform. If the amendment is overturned by the House and we have possibly thousands upon thousands of stops and searches at all hours of the day and night in inner cities such as mine, they will represent a recipe for many unfortunate incidents which will do nothing to reverse the rising tide of crime but will do a great deal to alienate further large sections of the community against the police. That would do a grave disservice to the community. It would certainly not be in the interests of the police.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I wish to express my support for the proposition that we should oppose the Lords in this amendment.
It was interesting to hear both the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) refer to the safeguards in clause 2(2) and (3). These are new safeguards, and I suggest that they are justifiable when officers are not in uniform. However, I think that the House will accept that in putting forward those safeguards we are expecting the officers to be trained

to a new standard, and that brings me to the question which I wish to raise in this debate, although I suppose that it could be raised in debates on nearly all these amendments.
I should like to know the Government's proposals for implementing this legislation, and I refer especially to the timing of the implementation. Before clauses 1 and 2 come into force we need to see a lot of training for police officers. For many months police officers have been tied up in defending civil liberties in mining areas and on the picket lines, and training for the regular police has suffered. Much training which would normally have taken place has been allowed to slip.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to assure the House that it is not proposed to bring in any of this legislation, especially this provision, until the training programmes of local police forces have returned to the levels which we should have seen but for the industrial action in the mines, and that time will be allowed for the full training of officers before any pressure is exerted to make the legislation effective.
I hope that that assurance will be given. If it is given, I shall be only too pleased to support the Government in opposing the amendment.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the view expressed by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) and I hope that the Government will respond positively to his proposal that, if they succeed in reversing the Lords amendment, they will seek to delay the implementation of this provision until there has been due time for the training of police but possibly also until the Government have put forward their proposals about the establishment of an independent prosecution service.
One of the complaints made with most force by those who have experience, especially the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), of conducting the defence of those subsequently arrested by the police is that the very fact of a search can provoke a chain of circumstances which in itself may lead to the commission of a criminal offence. It is highly desirable, if those circumstances are alleged, that the allegation should be subject to consideration by the independent prosecution service. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West spoke of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I think that what the Government have in mind may be more appropriate. If the Minister can give some assurances about that, he may assist the House considerably. However, it has to be said that, despite that safeguard, that is not really the only situation that gives rise to doubts about whether these powers are necessary.
On this recommendation I felt that the Philips commission was less than adequate in its argument about the necessity. It was not one of the most forceful of the commission's recommendations. In fact, the commission was divided about it, and it is precisely the kind of matter on which it is not suitable for the House to be divided by the Whips or on party lines, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) suggested. It is essentially a matter on which the judgment of those involved in the prevention of crime should be before the House to enable right hon. and hon. Members to consider their evidence. It is precisely the kind of case where it would have been useful for a prelegislative committee to have the opportunity to listen to the arguments before recommending the appropriate approach to the House.
The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was right to say that it is a matter of balance. It is plainly undesirable that so many people should be stopped and searched by police officers in plain clothes, as undoubtedly will flow from this provision if the Lords amendment is rejected, if it is not strictly necessary that that should be done. We have not heard about the necessity for this power. We have not even heard anecdotal evidence about it. We have had all kinds of assertions from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds about its necessity. Some rather high-flown language has been used, but we have heard nothing persuasive in terms of practical operational necessity from the spokesman for the police. I should have preferred an opportunity to hear from the police directly why it is seen as an operational necessity.
It is against that that we have to judge what is the clear evidence that a power of this nature will create a backlash of hostility against the police, especially among the young and ethnic minorities in our cities where already there is an observable erosion of confidence in the police and where it is more necessary than anywhere else to have the full co-operation of the public if the appalling crime figures are to be diminished.
I cannot see that it is in the interests of the police and those whose task it is to maintain the rule of law in our cities that the House should pass measures which further alienate those among whom they have to move. For that reason, if, regrettably, the House votes against the Lords amendment, this measure must be used with extreme care and most exceptionally.
There appear to be two circumstances in which it is argued that it is possibly justifiable to have searches made by policmen not in uniform. The first is where a policeman, when he is not in uniform, has his suspicions aroused and seizes the opportunity to find out whether the suspicious behaviour is indicative of an offence having been committed. If he encounters suspicious behaviour of that sort, he is presented with a difficult judgment. He has to consider whether he may damage the interests of the police by making an unjustified assumption. He runs the risk of alienating the sympathy of the person who is searched.
I do not think that the Minister or anyone will doubt that to be stopped and searched, even by a policeman in uniform, is not an experience to which the public take kindly; but they take even less kindly to being stopped and searched by someone of whose credentials they are not sure. Although there are safeguards in clause 2, I do not think that they will eliminate hostility on the part of the public or provide any certainty in the mind of the person who is stopped or searched that the policeman is justified in doing so.
The other circumstance is where certain members of the police feel it necessary or are instructed to go in plain clothes to make investigations. It is not by mere hazard that they embark upon such a search. It is an altogether more dubious practice than the first one that I mentioned, especially if it is not related to some specific and very serious offence.
It is perfectly possible to draw a distinction between serious and less serious offences, despite what the Minister said to the contrary. This House has frequently had to face

that dilemma. I do not believe that it is justifiable for policemen not in uniform to have the power to stop and search, except for serious offences.
For the reasons that I have given, I should be reluctant to support the Government in their motion to reject the Lords amendment. However, if the Government, with their huge majority, decide to overturn the freely expressed views of the other House, I beg them not to allow the police to embark on the process before the Government have brought in provisions for an independent prosecution service, or before the police have had proper time to establish training facilities to minimise the undoubtedly damaging effects that will flow from the provision if the greatest sensitivity is not used and if it is not used most sparingly.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I do not think that anyone in this House would accuse me of being on the wet, liberal left of my party on questions of law and order. I do not usually ally myself with hon. Members who seek constantly to use the police as a whipping boy, and who persistently attack a police force that I consider to be the finest in the world and which needs the support of this House rather than its criticism and constant attack. Nevertheless, I do not support the Government in the step that they are proposing to take this evening.
Although I do not support the Government now, 10 years ago I would undoubtedly have done so. In the past 10 years there has been a significant change in our society. For that reason, it is more important than ever before that there should be a proper and appropriately high degree of identification and recognition of police officers before they discharge their duties. Our society has degenerated to the point at which there is a lot of aggravation. It arises in situations in which it would never have arisen 10 years ago.
6.15 pm
The issue before the House is one on which hon. Members on both sides have said that what is involved is a question of balance. Even Lord Denning—not the greatest friend of Opposition Members—said in their Lordships' House that his mind had wavered to and fro as the arguments had gone on in the Committee, and that the question was whether the safeguards in the Bill were sufficient. It is true that he said that the safeguards were just sufficient to warrant the Bill going forward without the amendment. That comment emboldens me to say that honourable men of experience in the exercise of police powers in our society are entitled, on balance, to come to different conclusions. I am emboldened in my conclusion by the fact that a number of very distinguished and eminent people share my view and, incidentally, the views of those who are opposed to the Government tonight.
For three reasons, I think that it is undesirable, on balance, that the police powers should be extended beyond the powers they have to arrest without being in uniform in the most serious cases—those involving drugs, firearms and terrorism. We must not forget that those powers are very extensive.
I accept from my own experience that it is likely that many innocent people will be aggravated. They will be young; they will be coloured. They will also be middle-aged; they will also be old. It is only in recent months that I have begun to receive post from reputable constituents complaining about what they consider to be encroachments upon their freedoms, or the freedoms of their


families, by over-zealous police officers. I have never noticed that before throughout the 10 or 11 years in which I have been a Member of this House.
Ordinary, middle class, decent people who uphold and support the police are beginning to be aggravated. It may be that much of their aggravation is without justification, but it only underlines my point that the threshold of pain in our society today is now much lower. Whereas 10 years ago people were prepared to give police officers the benefit of the doubt and to accept their authority, they are now, for all kinds of reasons, less willing to do so.
Secondly, all too often in our society—it never happened 10 years ago—people are set upon, stopped or halted in the street by people who they fear are about to mug or rob them. It used not to happen, but it happens now in some of our cities on a scale never before imagined. That seems to be very dangerous for police officers who are not in uniform and thus are not easily recognised.
Thirdly—this follows from the second reason—I have little doubt that more police officers stopping more citizens in the new social atmosphere of high aggravation and a low threshold of pain will be assaulted. Frankly, it is a surprise to me that the Police Federation is in favour of taking away the uniform as a basis for stop and search in the lesser offences because it seems to me to be their protection against assault and attack.
For those three reasons, based upon my judgment—which may not be shared by others—our society is far more vulnerable and volatile than it ever was. I feel the gravest hesitation in inviting police officers to be assaulted, inviting young people to be more resentful and inviting people to go in greater fear of attack on our streets than they might otherwise have done.
I have also gone to and fro as I have heard the debates over the days, particularly tonight, and on balance I would say that we are giving a dangerous extension of power. The safeguards, the name, the police station, the object of the search, the grounds for proposing to make a search, the necessity to record—all those things are desirable. They are no less than we owe the police. They are not only justifiable but necessary. However, there is one problem in that they are not enforceable. A person stopped in the street and subjected to a search by a plain clothes officer would have to be extremely persistent to go along to the police station and to take advantage of the rights that we are giving to the citizen in clause 2. I do not think that the safeguards are sufficient to protect the police in the current situation of violence and aggravation in our society.
Sadly, for the reasons that I gave at the beginning of my speech, I feel that I cannot support the Government in their bid to overthrow what some distinguished, honourable and knowledgeable lawyers in the other place thought was right.

Mr. Giles Shaw: By leave of the House, I shall comment briefly on the points raised in the debate.
I thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for his kind remarks on my arrival, which were echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I find it extremely difficult to deal with the Bill, albeit in its last stages, with the same facility as others, but I shall do my best.
I detected that there were three separate strands in the debate. First, there was concern about the possible abuse of the powers that might be involved; secondly, there was concern that the police should require to have such powers

extended to plain clothes officers; and thirdly, there was concern that the relationship between the police and the public would be endangered if the police took the powers that we propose to introduce by deleting the amendment that the other place inserted in the Bill.
The House would do well to recall the background against which the Bill has proceeded. In the fight against crime, it is necessary to provide the police force with certain additional powers. It is also necessary to codify and co-ordinate some of the procedures that are needed. The necessity to make the policy more effective is important. The need to allow plain clothes officers to exercise stop and search powers when uniformed constables are also allowed to do so is also important.
We must also put on the record the extent of the safeguards that are in evidence—first, the safeguards in the Bill to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) referred. They may not be sufficient, but I should like to remind the House of the ones that are to be found in the code of practice relating to these powers. The draft code of practice recognises the specific problem to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred in relation to the sensitivity of these issues. Paragraph 1B of the draft states:
Statistics on the use to date of powers to stop and search indicate that in most cases no such article is found, and there is strong evidence that on many occasions these powers have been used where reasonable grounds to suspect the individual concerned of having the article in question on him did not in fact exist. There is also strong evidence that such misuse plays an important part in mistrust of the police among some sections in the community.
It is right that that should be set out clearly as the very important context in which any use of those powers is undertaken. The draft continues:
It is therefore important to ensure that the powers are used responsibly and sparingly. Over use of the powers is as likely to be harmful to the police effort in the long-term as misuse.
The point is therefore specifically recognised in the code of practice to be issued that this is a crucial power, that the context in which it is used must be most carefully weighed and that it must be used responsibly and sparingly. The paragraph concludes:
It is also particularly important to ensure that any person searched must be treated courteously and considerately if police action is not to be resented.
Therefore, that second element of safeguard that is in clause 2 and in the code of practice that has been drawn up for this purpose significantly reflects much of the anxiety that we have heard, for example, from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and Opposition Members.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Can the Minister therefore give the House an absolute undertaking that in every circumstance those safeguards will be observed and enforced?

Mr. Shaw: I cannot give the undertaking that in every case the safeguards will be enforced, but if they are not the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, under clause 64(7), when a code of practice is ignored, a disciplinary offence by the officer is created. That should be a significant deterrent for those who may seek to avoid implementing the code of practice.
The third element of safeguard was strongly urged on me by two of my hon. Friends—the Members for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) and for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). They were both concerned about


training, as was the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin that the training period is crucial to the implementation of this part of the Bill, as it is crucial to so many others. Likewise, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the time provided for implementation of those portions of the Bill requiring training will be so judged. In consultation with the police, an adequate period will be provided for their training in the new powers embodied in the Bill. I assure my hon. Friend too that it is important that the training be carried out with the full sympathy and understanding that the code of practice lays upon the individuals, quite apart from the fact that many of the powers will also require training for the legal profession in its acceptance of what is involved.
6.30 pm
I put it to the House, therefore, that there will be considerable safeguards in relation to the implementation of the Bill. I conclude, however, that the need to provide such powers is important if we are to have full confidence that the police, whether in uniform or not, can operate effectively in stopping and searching when so much material—prohibited articles and stolen goods—can frequently be found on persons if they are correctly suspected of having been involved in taking them.

Mr. Ashby: rose——

Mr. Shaw: I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friends—I am distressed that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton may not be one of them—and indeed the House as a whole will, on reflection, agree that the Government are right to advise the House to disagree with the Lords in the amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 160.

Division No. 472]
[6.31 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Browne, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Bruinvels, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Budgen, Nick


Amess, David
Bulmer, Esmond


Ancram, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Aspinwall, Jack
Butler, Hon Adam


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Butterfill, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Batiste, Spencer
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney


Benyon, William
Chope, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cockeram, Eric


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Colvin, Michael


Body, Richard
Coombs, Simon


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, John


Bottomley, Peter
Corrie, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cranborne, Viscount


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Critchley, Julian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Crouch, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen


Brinton, Tim
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dunn, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Durant, Tony





Dykes, Hugh
Lyell, Nicholas


Eggar, Tim
McCrindle, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Evennett, David
Madel, David


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Major, John


Fallon, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Farr, Sir John
Maples, John


Favell, Anthony
Marland, Paul


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marlow, Antony


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Mather, Carol


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maude, Hon Francis


Forth, Eric
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Franks, Cecil
Merchant, Piers


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Freeman, Roger
Miscampbell, Norman


Fry, Peter
Moate, Roger


Gale, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Moore, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moynihan, Hon C


Grant, Sir Anthony
Neubert, Michael


Greenway, Harry
Newton, Tony


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Norris, Steven


Ground, Patrick
Onslow, Cranley


Gummer, John Selwyn
Osborn, Sir John


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Ottaway, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hanley, Jeremy
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Pawsey, James


Harris, David
Percival, Rt Hon Sir lan


Haselhurst, Alan
Pollock, Alexander


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Porter, Barry


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hawksley, Warren
Powley, John


Hayward, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Raffan, Keith


Heddle, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Henderson, Barry
Rathbone, Tim


Hickmet, Richard
Rhodes James, Robert


Hicks, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hill, James
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hind, Kenneth
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hirst, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ryder, Richard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Holt, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hooson, Tom
Scott, Nicholas


Hordern, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Howard, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shersby, Michael


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Silvester, Fred


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Sims, Roger


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hunter, Andrew
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jackson, Robert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Speed, Keith


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Squire, Robin


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Key, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Stern, Michael


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Knowles, Michael
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Knox, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stokes, John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sumberg, David


Lilley, Peter
Tapsell, Peter


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lord, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter






Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Watson, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Thurnham, Peter
Wheeler, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Whitfield, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Whitney, Raymond


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wiggin, Jerry


Waddington, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wolfson, Mark


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Yeo, Tim


Wall, Sir Patrick
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Warren, Kenneth





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Freud, Clement


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
George, Bruce


Ashdown, Paddy
Godman, Dr Norman


Ashton, Joe
Gould, Bryan


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Barnett, Guy
Hardy, Peter


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Harman, Ms Harriet


Beith, A. J.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bell, Stuart
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Blair, Anthony
Home Robertson, John


Boyes, Roland
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hoyle, Douglas


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Buchan, Norman
Janner, Hon Greville


Caborn, Richard
John, Brynmor


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell, Ian
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cartwright, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clarke, Thomas
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Litherland, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Conlan, Bernard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Loyden, Edward


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McCartney, Hugh


Cowans, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McGuire, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Crowther, Stan
McKelvey, William


Dalyell, Tam
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McNamara, Kevin


Deakins, Eric
McTaggart, Robert


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Dormand, Jack
Marek, Dr John


Douglas, Dick
Martin, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Meacher, Michael


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Michie, William


Fatchett, Derek
Mikardo, Ian


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Nellist, David


Fisher, Mark
O'Brien, William


Flannery, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foster, Derek
Park, George


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert





Patchett, Terry
Soley, Clive


Pavitt, Laurie
Spearing, Nigel


Pendry, Tom
Steel, Rt Hon David


Pike, Peter
Stott, Roger


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Straw, Jack


Prescott, John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Radice, Giles
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Randall, Stuart
Tinn, James


Redmond, M.
Torney, Tom


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wareing, Robert


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Weetch, Ken


Robertson, George
Welsh, Michael


Ryman, John
White, James


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Woodall, Alec


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)



Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Robin Corbett and


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Mr. Frank Haynes.

Clause 2

PROVISIONS RELATING TO SEARCH UNDER S. I AND OTHER POWERS

Lords amendment; No. 2, in page 4, line 23, leave out "and".

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 3.

Mr. Shaw: The amendments ensure that the notice which is left on an unattended vehicle which has been searched informs the driver of his right to have a copy of the record of the search.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 4

ROAD CHECKS

Lords amendment; No. 11, in page 7, line 1, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 4 and insert
for suspecting that the person is, or is about to be".

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 14.

Mr. Shaw: The amendments excise from the Bill the expression
pattern of crime in an area".
That phrase was repeatedly critised by Labour Members and has generated a fair degree of controversy and misunderstanding.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 5

REPORTS OF RECORDED SEARCHES AND OF ROAD CHECKS

Lords amendment; No. 17, in page 8, line 24, leave out "set up" and insert "authorised".

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19.

Mr. Shaw: These are technical amendments which simplify the Bill, and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19 agreed to.

Clause 8

POWER OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE TO AUTHORISE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF PREMISES

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 10, line 14, after "of" insert "or include".

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 314 to 318.

Mr. Shaw: The amendments provide for a single application to a circuit judge where the police want access to material on the same premises, some of which is clause 8 material and some of which is special procedure material.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 10, line 20, at end insert—
(1A) A constable may seize and retain anything for which a search has been authorised under subsection (1) above.

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 27, 30, 34 to 36, 38, 40 to 44, 46, 48, and 319 to 323.

Mr. Shaw: The amendments clarify the seizure provisions of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10

MEANING OF "EXCLUDED MATERIAL"

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 11, line 15, leave out "held by him".

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31 to 33, 37, 39, 45, 49 to 52, 71, 73, 75, 79, 153, 155, 164, 165, 168, 170 and 290.

Mr. Shaw: These are all drafting amendments which I ask the House to accept.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24 agreed to.

Clause 16

EXECUTION OF WARRANTS

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 14, line 32, leave out
there are grounds for suspecting that".

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment makes it clear that the decision of an officer to execute a search warrant at an unreasonable hour requires no more than a bona fide belief that the purpose of the search would otherwise be frustrated.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 46 agreed to.

Clause 20

SEIZED ARTICLES: ACCESS AND COPYING

Lords amendment" No. 47, in page 19, line 41, leave out "prejudice the investigation" and insert
prejudice—
(a) that investigation;
(b) the investigation of an offence other than the offence for the purposes of investigating which the thing was seized; or
(c) any criminal proceedings which may be brought as a result of—
(i) the investigation of which he is in charge; or
(ii) any such investigation as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above."

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment permits the police to refuse someone access to an article which has been seized from him on the grounds not only that that would prejudice the investigation but that it would prejudice other investigations or criminal proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 48 to 59 agreed to.

Clause 26

ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT FOR FINGERPRINTING

Lords amendment: No. 60, in page 23, line 27, at end insert
(aa) has not at any time been in police detention for the offence; and

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 296.

Mr. Shaw: Amendment No. 60 honours an undertaking given on Report in this House to make it clear that the power of arrest conferred by the clause may be exercised only if the person convicted of an offence was not properly in police custody. Amendment No. 61 gives such a person a minimum period of seven days to go to a police station to be fingerprinted before the power of arrest can bite. Amendments Nos. 62 and 296 are drafting amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 61 and 62 agreed to.

Clause 29

ARREST ELSEWHERE THAN AT POLICE STATION

Lords amendments Nos. 63 and 64 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 65, in page 24, line 36, at end insert—
(1A) Subject to subsections (1B) and (1C) below, the police station to which an arrested person is taken under subsection (1) above shall be a designated police station.
(1B) A constable who is working in the area covered by a police station which is not a designated police station may take


an arrested person to any police station unless it appears to the constable that it may be necessary to keep the arrested person in police detention for more than six hours.
(1C) Any constable may take an arrested person to any police station if—
(a) either of the following conditions is satisfied—
(i) the constable has arrested him without the assistance of any other constable and no other constable is available to assist him;
(ii) the constable has taken him into custody from a person other than a constable without the assistance of any other constable and no other constable is available to assist him; and
(b) it appears to the constable that he will be unable to take the arrested person to a designated police station without the arrested person injuring himself, the constable or some other person.
(1D) If the first police station to which an arrested person is taken after his arrest is not a designated police station he shall be taken to a designated police station not more than six hours after his arrival at the first station unless he is released previously.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 5, leave out from 'constable' to 'may' in line 6 and insert
'to whom this subsection applies'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, Lords amendment No. 93, Lords amendment No. 94, with amendment (a) to it, and Lords amendments Nos. 95 and 294.

Mr. Shaw: These amendments relate to custody officers and to the detention which flows therefrom.
One of the most important concepts in the Bill is that of the introduction of the custody officer. The Royal Commission recommended, in paragraph 3.112 of its report, that as soon as a suspect is brought into a police station under arrest accountable responsibility for his welfare, for seeing that he is aware of his rights, for answering inquiries about his whereabouts and for decisions about his detention pass out of the hands of the arresting or investigating officer and into the hands of another officer. Following the Royal Commission, we have called this other officer the custody officer, and clause 34 provides for the appointment of custody officers.
The responsibilities and duties of custody officers are set out in clauses 35 to 37 and in the draft codes of practice for which clause 63 provides. To a large extent, these responsibilities and duties involve a distillation of current best practice—the custody officer inheriting the mantle of the present station sergeant. However, as his title implies, his role will involve a new and necessary emphasis on the treatment of the detained persons and a new element of direct personal accountability for their welfare and the safeguarding of their rights.
In Committee, clause 34 attracted criticism from both sides. It was urged that the custody officer's role was so significant a development of that of the station sergeant, and that the range of new safeguards provided by the Bill was so extensive, that clause 34 incorporated too casual an approach. We concluded that there was force in the criticisms. The difference in reality between the busy city centre police station manned round the clock by a number of officers and the unmanned rural station which is unlocked and used for only a couple of hours a day is greater than the distinction between subsections (1) and (2) of clause 34 implies. In the light of the Committee debates, we took into account some other inherent practical

problems which we had originally underestimated and which the Committee did a service in exposing. We therefore proposed in another place that clause 34 should be replaced by a new clause—amendment No. 94.
The other amendments deal with the necessary changes which flow from the new scheme in the new clause. Amendment No. 93 paves the way for the change. The new clause defines the term "designated police station". It requires each chief officer to designate sufficient police stations to provide accommodation for persons who are detained in his police area. These will be fully manned stations, generally open for 24 hours, to which the great majority of arrested persons will be taken.
Amendment No. 294 is consequential to the new clause, and adds the definition of a "designated police station" to the general interpretation clause.
The first five subsections of amendment No. 94—the new clause—provide for the appointment of at least one custody officer, who must be at least of the rank of sergeant, at each designated police station. The important feature of these subsections is that custody officers are to be specifically appointed as such and that those appointed must be of at least sergeant rank, although subsection (4) permits other officers, who might sometimes be of lower rank than sergeant, to perform the functions of the custody officer if he is not readily available.
Subsection (5) retains in the case of designated stations the division of investigative and custodial responsibilities at present prescribed generally in clause 34(3).
Subsections (6) to (9) address the problem of small rural police stations. Subsection (6) defines who is to perform the functions of the custody officer if an arrested person is taken to a non-designated station. If possible, an officer who is not involved with the investigation will perform this task. It may be that in the case of a two-man station the other officer would be available to do so. However, no such officer is readily available, or if both officers had been involved in the arrest, the demarcation between custodial and investigative responsibilities may be suspended.
The institution of custody officers is a major development in the ethos of policing. It is vital that the scheme should be workable and practicable. Clause 34 as printed would cause difficulties. It would lead in a minority of cases to considerable inconvenience to the arrested person and the depletion of local police cover. The amendments made in another place will meet this problem and introduce extra safeguards to balance the increased discretion given to the police.
Finally, we propose small additional amendments to the revised detention scheme. They will not in any way affect the 43 police forces in England and Wales which are governed by the Police Act 1964, but they are necessary to enable other forces such as the British Transport police and the various ports or docks police to continue to work effectively. I trust that the House will accept the amendments.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I am particularly concerned with Lords amendment No. 94. However, I should first like to welcome the new Minister of State to our deliberations. He joins us shortly before the second anniversary of the long saga of the Bill, which has spanned two Parliaments and survived two Home Secretaries. The


Minister is the third Minister of State to have been involved, and the Bill may well have attracted a record number of amendments.
I have to commiserate with the Minister, who resembles an actor taking over in the last act of a play. The lines have already been written, and he is forced to go through with the part. He has undoubtedly done his homework, but he may not be as aware of some of the debates that have taken place as we are. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and myself are the only survivors of the whole saga of the Bill.

Mr. Roger Sims: Oh.

Mr. Dubs: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon: there are three survivors.
It is significant that, despite the many changes to the Bill and the long hours of debate, the question of the custody officer and his key links with the provisions for lengthy periods of detention without charge continues to cause concern. Concern remains despite the changes which the Minister has described and the many changes made to the provisions for detention without charge made here and in another place. The worry has not been allayed. We have not yet been convinced that Scotland's six-hour maximum is not much more sensible than a 96-hour maximum.
The task of the custody officer is the key issue as he is responsible for authorising detention without charge in a police station. The Bill clearly states the reasons for that. They are to secure or preserve evidence or to obtain such evidence by questioning. The custody officer has a fundamental part to play. We believe that the result of his decision may be an oppressively long period of detention without charge during which a person is subjected to questioning. We know from cases that have come to light that that sometimes results in people being induced to confess to crimes that they have not committed. We quoted some examples in Committee. Safeguards against the abuse of such powers are few and far between. We have not yet had the safeguard which the Government conceded—it is still in its experimental stage—of tape recordings of interviews in police stations. That safeguard should be in place because of the custody officer's decision. When will that safeguard be forthcoming?
7 pm
As a result of the custody officer's decision, a person is held. Although the codes provide some right of access to legal advice, there is no absolute right. Some people who are kept for a long time may not be allowed access to solicitors. That is provided for in the code. It is important that access be safeguarded when a person can be held in custody for 96 hours. The Bill does not remove the right of habeas corpus, which is basic to our liberties, but these clauses significantly reduce a person's right to apply for it. That represents an erosion of people's rights and liberties.
New clause 94 worries me because it gives the responsibility of being a custody officer to a police officer of at least sergeant rank. I read in the October issue of Police that a Metropolitan police working party has examined the Bill's procedures and the requirement to provide custody officers. The working party sent a message to Sir Kenneth Newman and, the article runs,

he duly applied for a considerable increase in the establishment of sergeants. The Home Office turned him down.
The police are worried that the duties of custody officers will be so wide ranging and onerous that more sergeants will have to be appointed, at least in London. I find it alarming that the Metropolitan police envisage such an increase in the number of custody officers. That implies a large increase in the number of people who are detained without charge, some of them for quite a long time. New clause 94(4) provides:
An officer of any rank may perform the functions of a custody officer at a designated police station if a custody officer is not readily available to perform them.
If the Metropolitan police working party is to be believed, that will happen quite frequently.
The Government are saying that responsibility for holding someone without charge may quite frequently rest on an officer who does not have the seniority and experience of a sergeant. I entirely accept that sergeants must have served for some years, but they are not normally regarded as being all that senior. However, an officer of less experience might have the onerous responsibility of detaining someone for a long time. That is not good enough. We challenge the fundamental principle of long hours of detention without charge and the detail of new clause 94 which provides that the responsibility might be exercised as I have described.
In spite of the anxieties that hon. Members and others have expressed, these provisions damage civil liberties and could be used oppressively. We still lack safeguards. That is a great cause for concern. We shall vote against the principle and attach our objections to voting against new clause 94.

Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment agreed to.

Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment made, in line 9, at end insert—

`(1BB) Subsection (1B) above applies—
(a) to a constable who is working in a locality covered by a police station which is not a designated police station; and
(b) to a constable belonging to a body of constables maintained by an authority other than a police authority.'

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 66 agreed to.

Clause 31

SEARCH UPON ARREST FOR AN OFFENCE

Lords amendment: No. 67, in page 25, line 32, leave out from beginning to "may" in line 34 and insert—
(1) A constable may search an arrested person, in any case where the person to be searched has been arrested at a place other than a police station, if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 68 to 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 and 80.

Mr. Shaw: These are minor drafting changes.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 68 to 87 agreed to.

Clause 33

LIMITATIONS ON POLICE DETENTION

Lords amendment: No. 88, in page 28, line 13, at beginning insert
Subject to subsection (2A) below,

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 91.

Mr. Shaw: These amendments make the custody officer responsible for directing the release of a person in police detention, irrespective of whether he is in a police station.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 91 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 92, in page 28, line 33, at end insert—

"(5) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person arrested under section 7(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 is arrested for an offence."

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 105.

Mr. Shaw: These amendments generalise the provisions of clause 36(2) in what I hope is agreed a sensible way.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 93 agreed to.

Clause 33

LIMITATIONS ON POLICE DETENTION

Lords amendment: No. 94, to insert the following new clause—

".—(1) One or more custody officers shall be appointed for each designated police station.

(2) A custody officer for a designated police station shall be appointed—
(a) by the chief officer of police for the area in which the designated police station is situated; or
(b) by such other police officer as the chief officer of police for that area may direct.

(3) No officer may be appointed a custody officer unless he is of at least the rank of sergeant.

(4) An officer of any rank may perform the functions of a custody officer at a designated police station if a custody officer is not readily available to perform them.

(5) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to section 37(2) below, none of the functions of a custody officer in relation to a person shall be performed by an officer who at the time when the function falls to be performed is involved in the investigation of an offence for which that person is in police detention at that time.

(5A) Nothing in subsection (5) above is to be taken to prevent a custody officer—
(a) performing any function assigned to custody officers—
(i) by this Act; or
(ii) by a code of practice issued under this Act;
(b) carrying out the duty imposed on custody officers by section 37 below;
(c) doing anything in connection with the identification of a suspect; or
(d) doing anything under section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1972.

(6) Where an arrested person is taken to a police station which is not a designated police station, the functions in relation to him which at a designated police station would be the functions of a custody officer shall be performed—

(a) by an officer who is not involved in the investigation of an offence for which he is in police detention, if such an officer is readily available; and
(b) if no such officer is readily available, by the officer who took him to the station or any other officer.

(7) References to a custody officer in the following provisions of this Act include references to an officer other than a custody officer who is performing the functions of a custody officer by virtue of subsection (4) or (6) above.

(8) Where by virtue of subsection (6) above an officer who took an arrested person to a police station is to perform the functions of a custody officer in relation to him, the officer shall inform an officer who—
(a) is attached to a designated police station; and
(b) is of at least the rank of inspector,
that he is to do so.

(9) The duty imposed by subsection (8) above shall be performed as soon as it is practicable to perform it."

Read a Second time.

Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment made, in line 45, after 'officer', insert
'of a force maintained by a police authority'.

Motion made—[Mr. Giles Shaw]—and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 121.

Division No. 473]
[7.09 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Coombs, Simon


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope, John


Alexander, Richard
Corrie, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cranborne, Viscount


Amess, David
Critchley, Julian


Ancram, Michael
Crouch, David


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ashdown, Paddy
Dickens, Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dunn, Robert


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Durant, Tony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Eggar, Tim


Beith, A. J.
Emery, Sir Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Benyon, William
Fallon, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Farr, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Favell, Anthony


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forth, Eric


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fox, Marcus


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Franks, Cecil


Bright, Graham
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brinton, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Freud, Clement


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fry, Peter


Browne, John
Gale, Roger


Bruinvels, Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Buck, Sir Antony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Budgen, Nick
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Burt, Alistair
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir Anthony


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Greenway, Harry


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Ground, Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cash, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Chope, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Cockeram, Eric
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren






Hayes, J.
Pollock, Alexander


Hayward, Robert
Porter, Barry


Heddle, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Henderson, Barry
Powley, John


Hickmet, Richard
Raffan, Keith


Hicks, Robert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rhodes James, Robert


Hill, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hind, Kenneth
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hirst, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Holt, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hooson, Tom
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hordern, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howard, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Shersby, Michael


Howells, Geraint
Sims, Roger


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Speed, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Squire, Robin


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kennedy, Charles
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Key, Robert
Stern, Michael


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Knox, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lang, Ian
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Latham, Michael
Stokes, John


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lawrence, Ivan
Sumberg, David


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Tapsell, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lester, Jim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lilley, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lord, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lyell, Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


McCrindle, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Madel, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Major, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Malins, Humfrey
Waddington, David


Maples, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Marlow, Antony
Walden, George


Mather, Carol
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Wall, Sir Patrick


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waller, Gary


Meadowcroft, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Merchant, Piers
Warren, Kenneth


Moate, Roger
Watson, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Watts, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Moore, John
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Whitfield, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Whitney, Raymond


Newton, Tony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Norris, Steven
Wolfson, Mark


Onslow, Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Ottaway, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)



Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pawsey, James
Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Bermingham, Gerald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bidwell, Sydney


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Blair, Anthony


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boyes, Roland


Barnett, Guy
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Bell, Stuart
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Buchan, Norman





Caborn, Richard
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McTaggart, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McWilliam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Madden, Max


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Marek, Dr John


Cohen, Harry
Martin, Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Meacher, Michael


Cowans, Harry
Michie, William


Crowther, Stan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Nellist, David


Deakins, Eric
O'Brien, William


Dewar, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Douglas, Dick
Park, George


Dubs, Alfred
Parry, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Patchett, Terry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pavitt, Laurie


Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)
Pendry, Tom


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pike, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Faulds, Andrew
Prescott, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Radice, Giles


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Randall, Stuart


Flannery, Martin
Redmond, M.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foulkes, George
Robertson, George


Godman, Dr Norman
Rogers, Allan


Hardy, Peter
Ryman, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sheerman, Barry


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Heffer, Eric S.
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hoyle, Douglas
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Stott, Roger


Janner, Hon Greville
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


John, Brynmor
Tinn, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Torney, Tom


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Wareing, Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Welsh, Michael


Litherland, Robert
Winnick, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Woodall, Alec


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McCartney, Hugh



McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tellers for the Noes:


McGuire, Michael
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Rubin Corbett.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)



McKelvey, William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 95 agreed to.

Clause 35

DUTIES OF CUSTODY OFFICER BEFORE CHARGE

Lords amendment: No. 96, in page 29, line 10, after

"Where" insert "(a)"

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to discuss Lords amendment No. 97.

Mr. Shaw: These amendments permit the custody officer to detain a person who returns to the police station to answer to police bail for the purposes of charging him. I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 97 and 98 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 99, in page 30, line 4, leave out


informed that he may be liable to prosecution and".

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 100 and 101.

Mr. Shaw: These amendments provide for the situation in which a person is dealt with either by a formal caution or by no further action being taken. I commend them to hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 100 and 101 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 102, in page 30, line 23, at end insert—
(10A) It shall also be the duty of the custody officer—

(a) to take such steps as are practicable to ascertain the identity of a person responsible for the welfare of the arrested juvenile; and
(b)if—

(i) he ascertains the identity of any such person; and
(ii) it is practicable to give that person the information which subsection (10) above requires the custody officer to give to the arrested juvenile,

to give that person the information as soon as it is practicable to do so.

(10B) For the purposes of subsection (10A) above the persons who may be responsible for the welfare of an arrested juvenile are—

(a) his parent or guardian; and
(b) any other person who has for the time being assumed responsibility for his welfare.

(10C) If it appears to the custody officer that a supervision order, as defined in section 11 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, is in force in respect of the arrested juvenile, the custody officer shall also give the information to the person responsible for the arrested juvenile's suppervision, as soon as it is practicable to do so."

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment requires the police to inform someone responsible for a juvenile's welfare, as well as the juvenile himself, of the fact that a prosecution decision falls to be taken under section 5(2) of the Children and Young Person's Act 1969. That section has not been brought into effect and there are no plans to do so. It follows that clause 35(10) will also be left in abeyance.
The amendment honours an undertaking given in the other place, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 103 to 105 agreed to.

Clause 36

DUTIES OF CUSTODY OFFICER AFTER CHARGE

Lords amendment: No. 106 in page 31, line 43, leave out from first "so" to second "make" in line 1 on page 32.

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 114.

Mr. Shaw: These amendments deal with the transfer of juveniles who have been charged with an offence into the care of a local authority pending production in court the next day.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 107 to 115 agreed to.

Clause 38

REVIEW OF POLICE DETENTION

Lords amendment: No. 116, in page 34, line 8, at end insert—
(5A) If a review is carried out after postponement under subsection (4) above, the fact that it was so carried out shall not affect any requirement of this section as to the time at which any subsequent review is to be carried out.

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 128 and 129.

Mr. Shaw: These amendments all fill minor and unintentional gaps in the scheme of safeguards for the review of detention.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 117 to 129 agreed to.

Clause 41

WARRANTS OF FURTHER DETENTION

Lords amendment: No. 130, in page 38, line 26, after "application" insert "on oath".

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments No. 131, 135 and 136.

Mr. Shaw: These amendments all relate to the procedure for making an application for a warrant of further detention prescribed in clause 41(12).

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 131 to 153, agreed to.

Clause 53

INITIMATE SEARCHES

Lords amendments: No. 154, in page 49, line 3, at beginning insert
Subject to the following provisions of this section.".

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it is convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 156 and amendment (a) thereto, 157 to 163, 166, 167, 169, 171 to 173, 174 and amendment (a) thereto, 289 and 291.

Mr. Shaw: We now come to clause 53 which is concerned with the powers of intimate search. I know that this issue has been of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House as well as to their Lordships. The amendments permit, in the first place, nurses as well as doctors to undertake an intimate search, and, in the second place, the authorisation of doctors and nurses to search for class A drugs in certain circumstances. In addition, the Customs' powers of investigative intimate search are unaffected by these provisions.
7.30 pm
The Bill as passed by this House made no provision far intimate searches to be undertaken by anyone other than a registered medical practitioner or police constable, nor did it provide for an intimate search to be carried out for


any reason other than to remove a concealed or potential weapon. The first Bill provided for an intimate search to be carried out for investigation purposes—to obtain concealed evidence of a serious arrestable offence—but when my right hon. Friend reviewed the provisions of the Bill before reintroducing it into this House he took the view that this investigative power should be removed from the police.
However, in another place there was general agreement on all sides that this position was not satisfactory. It was urged that nurses and midwives as well as doctors should be able to undertake intimate searches, on the basis that, if such a search had to be undertaken in the first place, it was preferable for it to be undertaken by someone who was better qualified than a police officer. The Government were wholly sympathetic to this argument. We have always made it clear that intimate searches should be undertaken by police officers only as a last resort, where the risk of injury to the detained person himself or those guarding him outweigh the risk of injury caused by the search. Accordingly, after consultation with the relevant professional bodies, amendments were brought forward which would permit registered nurses to carry out intimate searches. These are amendments Nos. 162, 171, 172 and 174.
I should like to stress several points. First, intimate searches now take place only in exceptional circumstances. The new safeguards contained in the clause will ensure that the need to resort to a compulsory search of this nature arises only where there is no acceptable alternative. Secondly, if the need for such a search arises, the first port of call for the police is, and will remain, their own police surgeon, if this is practicable and he or she is available. It follows that the participation of nurses will be far from a routine occurrence. Thirdly, the Bill does not oblige any doctor or nurse to undertake a search on the authorisation of a senior police officer; it simply provides the authority in law for a search to be made.
The second point on which there was general agreement in another place was that, in view of the threat to the life and health of many young people posed by the growing trade in dangerous drugs, there should be a clear provision in the Bill for an intimate search to be carried out when a dealer or carrier is suspected, on reasonable grounds, of internally concealing drugs, particularly heroin. The amendments now before the House meet this need. They provide a power of search related to a class A drug which is being carried with intent to supply or export it. So the power is focused on those directly concerned in trading in these evil substances. It is also limited in other ways. Unlike a search for a concealed weapon, considerations of great urgency will not arise, and search for a class A drug may be carried out only by a registered medical practitioner or nurse—not by a police officer—and only at a hospital, surgery or other medical premises—that is, not at a police station. Because the power to remove class A drugs is vested solely in doctors and nurses, we have to recognise——

Ms. Clare Short: The Minister must be aware that the British Medical Association is unhappy with the amendment. Most doctors will refuse to conduct such searches and police constables will have to conduct them.

That is the consequence of the amendment. Untrained police constables will conduct intimate body searches on large numbers of people.

Mr. Shaw: I am not entirely persuaded that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is right in her allegation that the consequence of the amendment is that police officers will have to conduct searches. I am aware of the objections from certain branches of the profession, but the arrangements in the Bill do not require members of the profession to carry out searches. I accept that there are different views about who should carry out these searches.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Home Office will instruct chief constables to ensure that all police surgeons and deputy police surgeons on their appointment indicate their willingness to conduct intimate searches so that police surgeons cannot object on principle, and therefore the problem will not arise? Will chief constables also be instructed that when an intimate search is thought necessary the police surgeon or his deputy will be contacted, not some other doctor who is known to object to intimate searches, so giving the police an excuse to conduct the search themselves?

Mr. Shaw: The police will not seek to interpret the powers in that restrictive way. They will recognise that the medical practitioner may—not must—carry out a search if invited to do so and that it is lawful for him to refuse.
I take note of the hon. and learned Gentleman's other remarks and hope to reply later.
We naturally hope that if doctors or nurses are called upon to help the police to remove drugs from a suspected dealer or carrier, they will co-operate to the maximum degree possible, consistent of course with conscience and their own professional and ethical responsibilities.
Because of the restriction of the power to searches involving suspected supplies of class A drugs, it is much more limited in scope than the power in the Police Bill mark I. Since the decision to remove that power was taken over a year ago, we have all become much more aware of the threat posed by heroin and other hard drugs; and I believe that a strictly controlled search power should remain a weapon available for use in the campaign against hard drugs.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister take note of the terms of amendment No. 156 which refers only to the male person with regard to weapons, and, in paragraph (b)(i), states:
may have a Class A drug concealed on him; and (ii) was in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest"?
Is it intended that intimate searches should apply only to the male population, or does the word "him" also apply to females?

Mr. Shaw: The powers are not confined to one sex. It is accepted that in legislation "him" also means "her". We are talking about medical practitioners of either sex or nurses of either sex.
We have restricted the power to class A drugs on the basis that an exceptional power of this type should be limited to the most serious crimes. No one will doubt that drug smuggling is a very serious offence. The smuggling of lesser drugs, such as cannabis, remains a very serious


offence, but it does not follow that the same threat is involved. Trafficking in heroin and other hard drugs is unique, and we believe that such powers are appropriate.

Ms. Clare Short: The BMA says that class A drugs comprise 85 substances, some of which are not addictive and not dangerous. If the Minister wants to deal with the heroin problem, why is heroin not named in the Bill? The BMA is worried because so many substances are in the class A category. The BMA is worried in case the power becomes a licence to search unnecessarily. The Minister has not justified the power to search for so many different substances.

Mr. Shaw: We have no intention of using the reference to class A drugs as an invitation to search for every drug in that category. We are dealing with the classification of drugs and their potential seriously to damage health. It is most likely that heroin will be the drug for which a search is made. Searching will not take place if no criminal element is involved in the drug concerned. Trafficking in drugs, particularly heroin, is the cause of much crime and drug addiction.
The power can also be regarded as consonant with the protective intimate search power already in the Bill, since the internal concealment of toxic substances is very dangerous for the person concerned because of the risks of leakage or rupture.
I wish to stress one point. The Government brought forward the amendments, not—as has been suggested in the press—in response to pressure from the police, although it is certainly no secret that the police have indeed pressed us for the power to search for drugs. The reason that we brought forward the amendments was a genuine consensus in the other place that the repeal of the investigative search power should not extend to the most dangerous drugs. The Opposition there made it clear that they supported the retention of a power narrowed in that way, and we decided that it would be right to respect and to respond to that concern from all quarters.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The Minister is telling the House why the Government wish to accept the amendments. Has he any statistical evidence to support the Government's judgment?

Mr. Shaw: The statistical evidence is of drug abuse, drug carrying and drug trafficking. We are discussing whether the use of an intimate search power would be an effective way to deal with one aspect of criminal activity. I cannot give any statistics about intimate search recovery, because the power has not previously been available.
In this group of amendments there are amendments that permit Customs and Excise to apply to itself the power of protective intimate search contained in clause 55. That is a desirable safeguard that should clearly be available to Customs officers. However, Customs and Excise does have investigate search powers that derive from section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. That permits both intimate and non-intimate searches. In keeping with Customs' role in controlling the movement of goods in and out of the country, its search provision is not limited to class A drugs. Unlike the power now proposed for the police, the Customs provision permits searches only of persons within ports or airports, or entering or leaving the United Kingdom, and is therefore

exercisable only at those places. In short, section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act is shaped expressly to enable it to fulfil its particular functions.
Were Customs to adopt clause 53 in full, the investigative power provided for the police would call its own power into question. The first amendment to clause 107, therefore, limits its adoption of the clause to the protective power and search. Its present power of investigative search is maintained intact by the second amendment, in accordance with undertakings given here and in another place.

Mr. Corbett: The House will be grateful to the Minister for dealing with the amendments at some length. There is concern in every part of the House about the explosion in the trafficking and use of drugs such as heroin. It is a scar on many of our inner city areas. I say quite frankly to the Minister that a contribution to that has been the reduction in Customs and Excise staff at ports of entry. It has been estimated that at the major ports of Dover and Heathrow millions of pounds worth of heroin are smuggled into the country. The Minister may be interested to know that recently a member of the Customs and Excise staff told me that at an airport outside London at certain times of the day and night—and I am being careful not to mention the exact times—it is not possible to man even the red channel, let alone the green channel with its random searches.
We are now discussing intimate body searches and the possibility of their being carried out under compulsion. The Minister does not need me to remind him that the Opposition find that an offensive principle, and we have opposed it throughout the lengthy passage of the Bill. However, I am pleased that the Government now accept that such searches should be carried out only by a suitably qualified person, only at a hospital or similar premises, and that they will not, in any circumstances, be carried out by other people.
7.45 pm
I listened carefully to the Minister's argument in favour of changing the status of a suitable person from a registered medical practitioner to suitably qualified persons, such as nurses and midwives. I was glad that he made it clear that it would not be just any old body who had taken a first-aid course.
I grudgingly welcome the fact that under no circumstances will a constable be allowed to carry out intimate searches for drugs. For the life of me, I cannot foresee any circumstances in which, when an intimate search is required, it will prove impossible to find someone suitably qualified. It is going too far even to envisage circumstances in which, on the authority of a superintendent or senior police officer, a constable could be asked to carry out the search.

Ms. Clare Short: My hon. Friend appears to be suggesting that it is inconceivable under the clause that a constable could carry out an intimate body search on the suspicion of drugs being carried. I fear that that is not the case. If it is not practicable to have a doctor—and we know that the medical profession objects to the power—untrained constables can poke around in the orifices of men and women.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Lady is under a misapprehension, and I apologise if I contributed to that. When she


intervened in my speech, I thought that she was referring to police surgeons, as opposed to doctors and qualified people. I wish to make it clear that there is no power for police officers to carry out intimate searches for drugs. Such searches must be carried out by a police surgeon or another qualified person, such as a medical practitioner or a registered nurse or midwife. If doctors, nurses or the police surgeon are not available to undertake a search, there will be no search.

Mr. Corbett: I am glad that the Minister has clarified that point.
The Opposition have two major objections to the Government's proposals for intimate searches for drugs that could be carried out with the use of force. In all the consultations during the passage of the Bill the doctors have made clear their distaste at being required to search for evidence. Doctors and others in the medical profession have found that prospect alarming. They are reluctant to be asked not simply to search for evidence during an examination, but, if necessary, to do so with the application of force. I am sure that the Minister and others will take on board the fact that it is a matter of medical ethics, which must not be taken lightly in this place or elsewhere. It is certainly not taken lightly in the medical profession. Many members of the medical profession may decline to become involved in such practices. I noted that the Minister was careful to say that, where someone in the medical profession came to that conclusion, that view would be accepted.
A doctor, or, in the terms of one of the amendments, a "suitably qualified person", does not have ethical problems when the search—perhaps involving the use of force—of an arrested person is justified on ground of danger to the life of the individual. As the BMA has told us:
It is our view that there can be no objection to a medical practitioner carrying out an intimate body search where the purpose is to remove an object which is of immediate danger to the life or personal safety of the suspect or of those people responsible for the suspect's custody and supervision.
I am glad that the Minister acknowledges the strength of that argument. In other words, the BMA accepts that where the concealed drug could cause danger or physical injury to the suspect, its members would be prepared to search.
As the Minister and the House will recognise, this is an important distinction, because we are being told that the BMA does not support the search for evidence but would support a search if the reasons for it involved the safety of the suspect and that is the reasonable judgment of the suitably qualified person. That is a mile away from the clumsy compulsion in other parts of the Bill.
The second problem relates to the class A list of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The BMA was in consultation with the Home Office and made some proposals to the Department, but then the lines went dead. It was expecting a response from those responsible in the Home Office, but, in the words of the old song, "Answer came there none." As the Minister and the House will be aware, more than 85 drugs are listed in schedule 2, part I, to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The House will be delighted to know that I do not intend to read them out, mainly because of the problems that I anticipate over pronunciation of names of the drugs.
A wide range of drugs are set out in the list. There are a few of immediate interest, such as heroin, which the Minister mentioned. The others are the cocaine and cocaine-based drugs and the morphine and morphine-derivative drugs. I have taken advice, and I am informed that those are a small number of the drugs listed in the class A schedule. The amendment implies that we expect police officers not simply to be able to suspect that there may be morphine or cocaine-related drugs concealed in the intimate parts of the suspect, but to be able to spot the difference between cannabinol, either with or without cannabis or cannabis resin around it.
Amendment No. 156 allows for forceful intimate searches where a superintendent or more senior officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the suspect may have a class A drug concealed on him. Are we saying that a superintendent, or the generality of senior officers above that, can tell his ethylmethylthiambutene from his 4-Cyano-2-dimethylamino-4? It is ludicrous to suggest that, and, with the greatest respect to those in the medical profession, I should think that one would have to go a long way round that profession before one could find a qualified doctor who could instantly tell one the use of most of the drugs on the class A list.
The BMA further tells us that it acknowledges the point about the need for much better efforts to be made to stop the entry of heroin, the trafficking in it and its use. It is very much a linked process. As I have already said, if better efforts were made to stop heroin coming into the country in the first place, it would help to solve the problem.
The BMA also says this:
We appreciate the size of the current problem relating to the illegal importation of heroin but we believe that any provision made in respect of heroin would need to be a specific temporary provision. It appears to us that this could be done within the Bill by giving the Secretary of State the power to permit searches for heroin by laying the appropriate regulation. We believe these powers should be covered by an Affirmative Regulation.
It goes on to make the point that on the class A schedule is a drug called Fentanyl. It is used in carefully controlled circumstances in operating theatres, and there is no known case of addiction to it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman and I have debated this before. Like him, I have carefully read the BMA's memorandum. Does he think that the BMA's advice to Parliament as to how this should be done under regulations is sound?

Mr. Corbett: We should listen to what the BMA and those who practise medicine say. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has been telling us how important it is to take notice, through him, because of his links with the Police Federation, of what he described as the people at the sharp end. The BMA also has people at the sharp end and has stated its objection to what is suggested in the amendment. We should take on board what it is saying.
The list is far too long to be sensible. There is no need for it. As the Minister has already implied, if the main purpose of the amendment is to do something about the heroin and hard drugs problem, why do the Government not say so and limit what they are proposing precisely to that problem? I hope, although I am being optimistic, that it may not be too late for the Minister to change his mind.
I think the Minister appreciates that the medical profession dislikes being involved in intimate searches,


perhaps with the use of force, where evidence is being looked for by the police on the suspect. A suitably qualified person may be involved in a case in which the police are on the verge of requesting an intimate search and are able, under the terms of the Act, to use force. In this case, the medical practitioner may come to believe that there is no danger to the life or safety of the individual. For example, there may be a suspicion of the concealment of heroin in an intimate part of the body, and a suitably qualified person may have to make a judgment. Why not let nature take its course? Nature will eventually produce what the police suspect may be concealed.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Not always.

Mr. Corbett: I am not a "not always" man but I accept that there is no such thing as 100 per cent. of anything. In the generality, and with suitable patience and given suitable time, the drug, if that is what is being concealed, will be produced from the suspect. That is the alternative to be set against the judgment of suitably qualified persons who, in a general sense, are able to examine the suspect.
The Opposition dislike the powers that are set out in the clause. We think that they are far too wide and that they are dangerous in what we like to regard as a free society. We think that they are unnecessary for drugs and that there are are more effective measures that can be taken to deal with those who traffic in the vile trade of drugs.

8 pm

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that we are talking about matters that are dangerous to a free society. The most dangerous feature that we face is the avalanche of drugs that are coming into the country. When the Bill was discussed on Report the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) suggested that the use of hard drugs was taking on epidemic proportions. We must judge the danger to our society against that description.
I am obliged to three police officers for the information that they have made available. The chief constable of Sussex reported that in 1983 he executed 69 search warrants in his police area with a positive result for hard drugs. In 1984 he successfully executed 120—nearly double the 1983 figure. Seven arrests were made in 1982 involving heroin and 50 in 1983. So far this year 29 such arrests have been made at his count. The progression is clear. It is, of course, steeply upwards.
Secondly, I refer to the report of the chief constable of Lothian and the Borders police area. I have chosen areas that are representative of the country as a whole. The chief constable of Lothian and the Borders, in his annual report, stated:
Drug abuse in Edinburgh has reached the stage where heroin is in prolific use in several districts of the city.
He reported that there was a
serious involvement of the criminal fraternity in the market for heroin, morphine and cocaine, that large sums of money are readily available for financing drug dealings and that there is evidence that the so-called customers are turning to crime to raise the money to feed their addiction.
Those are the considered words of the chief constable in his report to his police authority.
The Times reported recently that a survey
of those arrested for theft or house breaking in Edinburgh in a six-month period last year showed that more than 34 per cent. of those offences had direct links with drug abuse.
The connection between hard drugs and violent crime is proven beyond peradventure.

Mr. Bermingham: How many of the search warrants to which the hon. Gentleman has referred were connected with an intimate search of the person against whom the warrant was issued? On how many occasions in Edinburgh have heroin-based drugs been found to be concealed in the intimate parts of a female? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we must direct our remarks to the subject matter, which is intimate searches.

Mr. Griffiths: I think that I am entitled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your agreement, to set out the general context against which we have to consider the amendment. I am setting out the general context and I intend to complete it. I shall deal with intimate searches in a moment.
The chief constable of the Thames Valley area, Mr. Peter Imbert, stated:
The epidemic is spreading from the cities into the towns and is affecting more and more young people.
He speaks eloquently, in my view, of the tragedy, and says:
In the past few years the age of addicts has become younger and the accessibility of drugs is moving towards younger people in our society.
That is what he said while chairing a conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Hutton in Lancashire. In my view, Lord Lane said it all in a recent speech. He said that the hard drugs problem is becoming deadly serious and that its link with violent crime is clear cut. It is against that background that we must consider——

Ms. Clare Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has not yet mentioned intimate body searches, which is the subject of the amendment. He has spoken generally about the problem of drugs in our society and their association with violent crime. Surely that is not in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening carefully to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). It is for the occupant of the Chair to decide whether a Member is out of order.

Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ladywood should know, after our long service on the Bill, that I speak in order.
In the context that I have described, with hard drugs becoming a major problem and perhaps an epidemic in Britain, and with their proven connection with violent crime, I turn to the question before us. How do we deal with it, and is it necessary to have the disagreeable business of intimate searching? No police officer wants to be involved with a distasteful and unpleasant practice. The suggestions made in some of the anti-police literature that has been put about by the Greater London council and the hard Left, that the police are slavering at the lips to get into intimate searching, is a perversion of the truth. However, the police have a duty, and they have often to carry through a disagreeable duty.
The power to carry out an intimate search, whoever performs it, is most valuable, because often it causes the offender to produce the drugs himself or herself rather than submit to an intimate search. I recall giving one example in Committee which bears repetition. I think that the matter arose in the Gloucester police area, but I am not sure. There was a series of offences involving thefts from


parked cars at a beauty spot. The police were keeping observation and a couple were observed. To use the rather quaint language of the police description, the lady was walking rather peculiarly.

Ms. Clare Short: This is revolting.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, it is revolting. It emerged that many of the keys that had been used in stealing from the parked cars had been carried in what is politely known as the body orifice. When challenged by the police, the lady produced those keys, because she knew, and was told, that it was possible that she would be submitted to an intimate search. The intimate search was, therefore, unnecessary.
When we debated this subject previously, we considered the problem of the police search for evidence. The House, in its wisdom or otherwise, disagreed on the issue of whether the police could search for evidence. The Government now propose to add a much more limiting power to the Bill. The power deals specifically with two points. It deals with the possibility of searching for those things that could be used to cause harm to the individual concerned or to others in his proximity and—I am glad of this measure—class A drugs.

Mr. Bermingham: As this is the last occasion on which the hon. Gentleman can do so, will he answer the question that I asked him previously when he referred to the Gloucestershire story? The question is simple: upon what authority was the lady told that she could be subjected to an intimate search? Even under the provisions of the new Bill, a bunch of keys could not be said to be a weapon, and certainly not a class A drug.

Mr. Griffiths: I understand that, even before we came to debate this Bill, the power of the police to require a search to be carried out already existed. That may well be a common law power, and the hon. Gentleman might wish to comment on that point later.
The amendment will allow a search for items that can cause injury to the person concerned or to others in his vicinity. Without going into distasteful detail, I point out that it is extraordinary to note the remarkable collection of items that have been carried in the body orifices. I shall not go into detail, save to mention two examples. In one case, a man was found outside a police station with a listening device within his body. He was listening to an interrogation that was going on in the police station.
I must mention another case, because we are living in the aftermath of the terrible events in Brighton. It is not uncommon for microdetonators to be carried within the body. No one can exclude the possibility of terrorists carrying in their bodies the microdetonators or radio timing devices that can be used to trigger explosions. I know that hon. Members do not lke to hear about those matters, but they are the facts of the modern technological age, and the police service must cope with them. It is right to have this power to cause a search to take place if there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is carrying items that can damage himself or those within his immediate vicinity. I am glad that the Government have included this measure in the Bill.
I am sorry that hon. Members were not able to dispose of the drugs matter on Report. I moved an amendment to that effect, but at that stage the measure was not favoured

by the Government. I am pleased that the other place has been more persuasive than I was. I have two questions to ask, one of which has been asked already by the hon. Member for Erdington. I do not understand the logic of the class A drugs list. I do not believe that all the drugs on that list are addictive. Having read what the British Medical Association said, I am inclined to feel that my opinion is correct.
8.15 pm
If the class A list does not hang together because the items on it are addictive, what is the peculiar justification of that classification? I regard other class B drugs as damaging. I certainly do not think that people should traffic in those drugs in this country, but they are to be excluded. As the hon. Member for Erdington said, no police officer, when he requires a search to take place, can possibly tell the type of drug he is searching for. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about how police officers can tell the type of drug for which they are searching is that they do not know. In practice, the police turn over any evidence of drugs of that type to the forensic department. The police require the forensic department to determine what the particular drug is.
There is a danger with this practice. Suppose there is good reason to believe that a person is a trafficker in these terrible things which place children in the most appalling danger and is carrying such drugs and a search is made and the forensic people determine that the drug found is not class A but class B. The police have a certain amount of humour. One police office said to me, "I suppose that if it is a class B drug, they have to put it back". That is preposterous. No one imagines for one moment that that would happen. There must be a more logical explanation—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will provide it—why the classification of class A is appropriate. No doubt at some stage this measure will be embodied in force orders so that the forensic people will know how to handle the drugs.
The BMA lectured the Committee about how we should conduct our business. I, among others, asked the BMA to meet us and explain its difficulties. I do not know why the BMA did not do so. Perhaps it was frightened that its case was not very good. I do not believe that the BMA's professional performance in advising Parliament on this Bill has been very good. Moreover, there is no evidence that the BMA speaks for the Association of Police Surgeons of Great Britain. The police surgeons have their own professional body. I should be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister of State—if not now, perhaps on some other occasion—whether the Association of Police Surgeons, which is separate from the BMA, has a considered view.
I believe that the Government have got the amendments right. They should be passed. They will assist in the fight against terrorism and hard drugs.

Mr. Bermingham: Once again I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). Much of what he said tonight was said in other places, including in Committee. I do not believe that the Bill can be allowed to go on to the statute book without, at some stage, someone answering certain fundamental questions. I have posed those questions to Government Ministers and to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds on a number of occasions, but have not yet received answers.
I intervened during the speech of the Minister of State to draw his attention to the wording of Lords amendment No. 156, which is in the male, rather than the male or female, form. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds inadvertently misled hon. Members in Committee, on Report and in the House. I appreciate the cause that he seeks to espouse, and I understand his position in these matters, but I do not see how the listening device referred to in the first example can be said to be an object likely
to cause physical injury to himself or others; and
(ii) he might so use while he is in police detention or in custody of a court;
I cannot see how the type of detonator that needs other firing devices can be said to fall within the provisions of amendment No. 156. I have often puzzled over the Gloucestershire case and I have never been able to understand how a bunch of keys would come under the terms of the amendment.
When one talks about intimate body searches, whether of male or female persons, one is beginning to go down the road which says that even the human body is no longer sacrosanct within the English legal system. It is easy, in the context and times of dreadful events, to use a dreadful event as an excuse to pervert—if I may put it as strongly as that—some of the basic principles that we have held strongly for a long time.
Everyone in the House wishes to facilitate the fight against crime, to ensure that the guilty are captured and sentenced and that society is protected, but liberty also has its price. I have heard no evidence at any stage of the discussions on the Bill which has convinced me that intimate body searches will assist in the fight against the drug pusher. Not one example has been given, as far as I can recall—if anyone can think of an example I shall stand to be corrected—of intimate body searches having facilitated the conviction of a drug pusher. The reality is that when a person suspected of being a drug pusher or carrier is taken to the police station it is easy to make a claim, "We suspect that you are." What worries me is that if the amendment reaches the statute book that allegation will become the justification for the extensive use of intimate body searches.
I am also worried that the amendment talks of a class A drug only. How is anyone to know beore the search whether one is searching for—I believe that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds recognised the point—class A or class B drugs? It will be sought to justify the search by saying that it might be a class A drug, even if it turns out to be a class B drug or nothing. How, why and what justification will be sought? We all know that in practice it will be recorded in the notebook, "I believed that". That is a justification, but it is not good enough. We have stepped down the road of licence. We have started licensing intimate body searches. The moment one starts down that road, one starts to negate liberties.
In a civilised society we do not need these provisions. There are many other ways in which we can secure the protection of our liberties. For example, we could employ people to find these offenders, but I shall not waste the time of the House by canvassing what has been said by other hon. Members about other methods.
I shall leave the House with one last thought. It goes back to something that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said tonight. He asked whether the Association of Police Surgeons of Great Britain would take the same

ethical view as the BMA. The BMA objects to intimate body searches on the ethical ground that it is wrong to probe the human body where there is no danger to life or limb from whatever that person has been using his body for. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the letter from the BMA dated 23 October, of which no doubt he has received a copy, he will see that it sets out clearly the basis of its ethical objections. It is simple. If there is no danger, there should be no probe.
I cannot see how the Association of Police Surgeons can take a different view. Its members are invariably members of the BMA and no doubt are subject to the same rules of the ethics committee. Perhaps we could end the argument if the members of the medical profession stood united. Whether they be doctors, nurses or midwives, the basis of their ethics is the same. They believe in the sanctity of human life and the protection and sanctity of the human body. If they stand firm, as the Minister said, there will be no intimate searches and our country will be that little bit more civilised.

Mr. Sims: I rise to speak lest my silence on the amendment be interpreted as enthusiastic support for it. I believe that intimate body searches are distasteful and disagreeable, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, the power needs to exist because more often than not the simple threat that it can be used is sufficient to produce what would otherwise be found by the search.
The first Bill that we discussed codified powers of intimate search as being for a weapon or evidence of an offence. The latter part was dropped in the later Bill for reasons that I have yet to hear clearly explained. In Committee, I endeavoured to reintroduce the proposal because I believe that the police should have the ultimate power to search for evidence of an offence. I suggested that it was easy for people to conceal on their person evidence of an offence such as keys, money, credit cards and drugs. I was unable to persuade the Government despite the long list of offences where such evidence had been found, but I am pleased that they considered the strong representations on this issue made in another place. My regret is that the solution they reached is most unsatisfactory and the worst of all worlds.
The amendment specifies certain drugs only and, therefore, we have the ridiculous position that an intimate search can be carried out if it is believed that a person is carrying within him or herself heroin but not if it is believed that he is carrying cannabis. The other is the difficulty, highlighted by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), of what the position is if the police require an intimate body search to be carried out on the ground that the person is believed to be carrying within himself a class A drug but it is found that he is not carrying the drug but is carrying something else which is evidence of an offence such as keys, money or a credit card.
As I understand it, although it could be argued that the search should not have been carried out, having been carried out and the evidence having been produced, it can then be used. The opportunities for improper procedures and abuse are self-evident. I believe that that is an unsatisfactory solution to the problem, but on the ground that half a loaf is better than no bread, I shall reluctantly support the amendment.

Ms. Clare Short: I cannot let the amendment pass without objecting to the provisions that the Government


are introducing. When one discusses the Bill with members of the public, women find the provisions that permit the police to organise intimate body searches the most objectionable.
When we discuss the Bill's provisions we tend to talk as though such searches will be made only when they are justified. But in the nature of the provision that is not so. When we say, "If there is reasonable suspicion this can be done," it follows inevitably that people will be searched who are not guilty and forcibly searched in the most intimate parts of their bodies when there is nothing incriminating to be found and they should not be searched in that way.
8.30 pm
I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that, in the case of drugs, with this widening of the power it will not be possible for the police to search an individual forcibly if a nurse or a doctor is unwilling to agree to it. But I fear that this will not be the protection that it may be in these days of massive unemployment and poverty, even in the medical profession and especially amongst nurses. I fear that there will always be someone willing to carry out such a search in return for the money that he or she will be paid.
In our inner cities especially, in the name of looking for drugs the police can and do stop and search every young black whom they feel like stopping and searching. It follows inevitably from this provision that the police will be able to threaten with an intimate body search every young black whom they pick up whenever they feel like doing so. That is what will flow from this provision.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) talked with relish, as he did in Committee, of the need for intimate body searches. In doing so he demonstrates the low level to which society is descending. I find it appalling that we happily and openly take powers to search forcibly the most intimate parts of the bodies of human beings. We do not appear to justify reluctantly the powers being taken and we hear from Government supporters calls for even more powers so that the police will be able to search forcibly anyone in these intimate places whenever they like.
There has to be some basic standard of decency. Probing around in the most intimate parts of the bodies of human beings or threatening such probes is indecent. We should not take this power. It is disgraceful and objectionable. I object to it strongly.

Mr. Giles Shaw: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond to one or two matters raised in the debate.
I ought perhaps to remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that the amendment approved in the other place was moved by my noble Friend Baroness Masham of Ilton. If my noble Friend had heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Ladywood she would be rightly shocked. It is not an issue which anyone takes any relish in debating or legislating about. It is unfortunately an issue which the length to which members of the criminal fraternity are prepared to go in drug dealing has brought to our attention. We are doing our best in the amendments approved in the other place to solve the problem.
I wish to comment on three issues raised in the debate. The first refers to class A drugs. By their definition, class A drugs are highly dangerous. There is no doubt that some

are more dangerous than heroin. LSD is an example. As for addictiveness, since the power is restricted to possession with intent to supply in practice it will bite only in the case of drugs which have a market and for which there is a demand.
Our main concern at the moment is with heroin. But there are other drugs which are also of concern although they are not so common or popular with addicts at present. I have in mind some of the pain-killing drugs—the opiates, morphine, pethidine and, of course, cocaine. But there are reasons for saying that the class A drugs are the most dangerous and that those drugs which become marketed as part of the criminal intention to create addiction are the ones which in due course will be covered by police activities in this area.
As for the BMA, the medical profession has made it clear that doctors can ethically and properly carry out intimate searches to remove articles which pose an immediate threat to the lives of the persons concerned or those guarding them. The BMA has now accepted that, because of the threat posed by heroin to the health of society, it may be right and necessary for doctors to participate in its removal from a suspected dealer. But the amendments are not limited to heroin, because there are other class A drugs, and there can be no logical difference between the removal of one dangerous drug and that of another. Internal concealment and danger to the health of the carrier which is posed by it make the drugs even more dangerous, and we hope that doctors will be able to agree to act upon police requests for assistance.
The nursing professions have accepted that the voluntary involvement of their members is permissible in the exceptional circumstances for which this power provides. The Royal College of Midwives has not accepted it, but in many cases members of that college are also registered nurses. The Bill makes it clear that the searching for drugs in terms of the intimate search powers will have to be carried out by a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse.
My final comment relates to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). The real issue at stake should be the prevention of drugs coming into the country, anyhow. We know that this is a big world-wide traffic. We have to do our best to improve the sources of detection before they reach the market. I assure the House that the Government have taken action in terms of additional customs provision. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health announced recently that 100 new customs posts will be provided to fight drug smuggling alone, that there will be additional customs staff on the Central Drugs Intelligence Unit and that senior customs officers have been posted to Karachi to improve operational intelligence about that market from which so many drugs come. I accept entirely that what has to come about is stifling the trade at birth rather than being involved in pieces of legislation which give no one pleasure when discussing the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and these amendments.

Mr. Corbett: Are the customs posts to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred additional jobs, or are officers being transferred from other duties?

Mr. Shaw: As far as I am aware, they are additional jobs. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for the customs service.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 155 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 156, in page 49, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert—

"(i) he could use to cause physical injury to himself or others; and
(ii) he might so use while he is in police detention or in the custody of a court; or

(b) that such a person-—

(i) nay have a Class A drug concealed on him; and
(ii) was in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest,"

Read a Second time.

Amendment to the Lords amendment proposed: (a), leave out from 'court' to end of line 10.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 239

Division No. 474]
[8.37 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Ashton, Joe
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Home Robertson, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hoyle, Douglas


Barnett, Guy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Janner, Hon Greville


Bell, Stuart
John, Brynmor


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bermingham, Gerald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Leadbitter, Ted


Blair, Anthony
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Boyes, Roland
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
McCartney, Hugh


Buchan, Norman
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Caborn, Richard
McGuire, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McKelvey, William


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McNamara, Kevin


Clarke, Thomas
McTaggart, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McWilliam, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Martin, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maxton, John


Craigen, J. M.
Meacher, Michael


Crowther, Stan
Michie, William


Dalyell, Tam
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Morris, Rt Hon J, (Aberavon)


Deakins, Eric
Nellist, David


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dobson, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Douglas, Dick
Park, George


Dubs, Alfred
Parry, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Patchett, Terry


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Pavitt, Laurie


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pike, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Faulds, Andrew
Prescott, John


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Radice, Giles


Flannery, Martin
Randall, Stuart


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Redmond, M.


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foulkes, George
Robertson, George


George, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Godman, Dr Norman
Rowlands, Ted


Gould, Bryan
Sheerman, Barry


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hardy, Peter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Skinner, Dennis





Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Welsh, Michael


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Woodall, Alec


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Straw, Jack



Tinn, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Torney, Tom
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Robin Corbett.


Wareing, Robert



Weetch, Ken





NOES


Adley, Robert
Favell, Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Alexander, Richard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Ancram, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ashby, David
Forth, Eric


Ashdown, Paddy
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Roger


Beith, A. J.
Freud, Clement


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Benyon, William
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Best, Keith
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blackburn, John
Grant, Sir Anthony


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, Harry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hanley, Jeremy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brinton, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hawksley, Warren


Bruinvels, Peter
Hayes, J.


Budgen, Nick
Hayward, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Heddle, John


Butler, Hon Adam
Henderson, Barry


Butterfill, John
Hickmet, Richard


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Hirst, Michael


Cartwright, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hooson, Tom


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Howells, Geraint


Coombs, Simon
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter, Andrew


Critchley, Julian
Jackson, Robert


Crouch, David
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kennedy, Charles


Dunn, Robert
Key, Robert


Durant, Tony
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lang, Ian


Evennett, David
Latham, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fallon, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, Sir John
Lee, John (Pendle)






Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Nicholas
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


McCrea, Rev William
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrindle, Robert
Squire, Robin


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclennan, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stern, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maples, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Marlow, Antony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sumberg, David


Meadowcroft, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Moore, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Newton, Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Waddington, David


Norris, Steven
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Pollock, Alexander
Ward, John


Porter, Barry
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Warren, Kenneth


Powley, John
Watson, John


Raffan, Keith
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Whitfield, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Whitney, Raymond


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Winterton, Nicholas


Ryder, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wood, Timothy


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)



Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. John Major and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)



Shersby, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendments Nos. 156 to 178 agreed to.

Clause 55

ADDITIONAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS WHO ARE ARRESTED

Lords amendment:No. 179, in page 52, line 11 leave out from "arrested" to end of line 16 and insert
such steps as are practicable shall be taken to ascertain the identity of a person responsible for his welfare.

(2A) If it is practicable to ascertain the identity of a person responsible for the welfare of a child or young person, that person shall be informed, unless it is not practible to do so—

(a) that the child or young person has been arrested;
(b) why he has been arrested; and
(c) where he is being detained.

(2B) Where information falls to be given under subsection (2A) above, it shall be given as soon as it is practicable to do so.

(2C) For the purposes of this section the persons who may be responsible for the welfare of a child or young person are—

(a) his parent or guardian; or

(b) any other person who has for the time being assumed responsibility for his welfare.

(2D) If it is practicable to give a person responsible for the welfare of the child or young person the information required by subsection (2A) above, that person shall be given it as soon as it is practicable to do so."

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 180, 181 and 182.

Mr. Shaw: Clause 54 requires the police to inform the parents or guardian of a juvenile in police detention of his arrest and whereabouts. That duty already exists at present by virtue of section 34 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Clause 54 was intended to update that section. Unfortunately, however, we realised while the Bill was in another place that it did rather more than that. Whereas the 1933 Act obliges the police to take such steps as may be practicable to convey the necessary information, clause 54 as printed imposes an absolute duty. But of course there may be cases where the duty cannot be carried out because the whereabouts of parents are simply not known. Amendments Nos. 179, 180 and 181 accordingly set out what the police practicably can and must do after arresting a juvenile.
Amendment No. 182 covers the case where a juvenile is in the care not of a local authority but of a voluntary organisation having parental rights and responsibilities for him.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am very concerned abut the earlier part of this set of amendments. In broad terms what is suggested is acceptable and good, sound common sense, but there have been many cases in which the police have said from time to time in evidence, "We would have told the parents," or "We would have told the guardian or foster parents,"—such cases often arise—"if it had been practicable to do so, but we telephoned their home and they were out." Alternatively, the police might say, "We sent a bobby round to their house, but they were out." Where a child or a young person is taken into custody and often, nowadays, regrettably, charged with an extremely serious offence, it is desirable that the police should take more than merely cursory steps to ascertain the whereabouts of the person responsible for the welfare of the child or young person. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that the Government will issue guidelines and, if so, what guidelines will be issued to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. There are important distinctions between having a juvenile and having those of more mature years in custody. All that I can do is to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the police are to take this duty seriously and that in the case of a juvenile they must take as many practicable steps as possible to inform the next of kin, parent, guardian or person who has responsibility. That is what the amendment is designed to do. There will be guidance on this matter in due course. I must also tell the House, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will probably concede, that the police try extremely hard, when they have young


persons in custody, to find the parents. It is astonishing sometimes how lax parents are about knowing the whereabouts of their children.
Amendment No. 182 covers the case where a juvenile is in the care not of a local authority but of a voluntary organisation. In such a case it is clearly desirable that the police should have to give the organisation the information required by the clause. The amendment ensures that they will.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad to support these amendments.
Often children who come into the custody of the police are terrified of their parents. In some cases children will lie when the police ask them where they belong because they are frightened. Sometimes there is child abuse and child beating. I can only say from personal experience that, although I do not wish to generalise because all generalisations are untrue, there is a remarkable amount of kindness in police stations towards young people—terrified children, children who are wet, cold and hungry. Sometimes even when the social workers are on strike the police station is the last recourse, and the police take the children in. They do not have many facilities, but in wide areas of the police force there is such kindness to children, which should be put on record.
Of course, it is right that the police should get in touch with the parents as soon as possible if they can, but amendment No. 181 is right to insert the words
as soon as it is reasonably practicable".
For my part, I am confident that the police service will do that in the overwhelming majority of cases.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend about amendment No. 182, which concerns cases when the child or young person is in the care of a voluntary organisation. Manifestly, the same duty must lie upon the police in such cases. One of the problems is that such organisations frequently do not have a night number. For one reason or another, there may be no one on duty or available. I hope that in any guidance or advice by circular to chief officers the Home Office will take account of the fact that not every voluntary organisation which has custody of children is necessarily easy to contact late at night.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The purpose of the amendment is clearly highly desirable. It is also clear, however, that there is no inherent sanction. I appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that in some areas some officers may not be so assiduous as others in carrying out this duty. As there are no sanctions attaching to this statutory obligation, it is important that police forces should lay down very careful guidelines as to the steps that officers should take in given circumstances. I am sure that the House will welcome any observations that the Minister can make on that.

9 pm

Mr. Giles Shaw: The points raised in all three interventions relate to the same matter. I accept that if juveniles are held in custody, the duty on the police to inform those responsible for them must be taken very seriously indeed, and that is how it will be.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 180 to 183 agreed to

Clause 56

ACCESS TO LEGAL ADVICE

Lords amendment: No. 184, in page 52, line 40, at beginning insert
Subject to subsection (2A) below,

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 185.

Mr. Shaw: These amendments excuse the police from having to record a request for legal advice made by a person already at court. Clause 56(2) rightly requires the police to record a request for advice made by a person who has been arrested and is in custody, but it is frankly not sensible to require them to make a record when the person is already at court. Once there, he is in the custody of the court, whether he is in the court room itself or in the cells below. It is thus for the court and its staff to deal with any request for legal advice, and no useful purpose would be served by a police log. Indeed, it might cause the police some administrative difficulty as the person's custody record would have been left behind at the police station. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that the amendments are sensible and should be accepted.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Defendants often assert in court that they asked for a solicitor to be called, but that that was not done. One purpose of the custody record is to ensure that any request by the accused for a solicitor is recorded. The amendments will bring about a hiatus—a period during which it will be provided that no record should or, indeed, can be kept of such a request. One can foresee the police admitting in court that a request for a solicitor was made, but saying that, as it was made at court, no record was kept, while the defendant claims that the request was made before leaving the police station. The Minister laughs, perhaps with some justification, but I assure him that the criminal mind is well capable of spotting such a problem area and the news gets around quickly, especially in the remand centres. I hope that the Government considered that problem before deciding that this was the appropriate course. If not, perhaps they should think again.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Again, I am in some sympathy with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the position. If a defendant makes a request to the court for a solicitor, that is almost certainly a matter of public record or at least something that can be established. The worrying point, however, is where the request is made after leaving the court because there is then a matter of controversy. If the request is made before going into the court, the defendant can clearly repeat it to the court, so in that case the difficulties are largely overcome. There is a period between the moment when he ceases to be in the court and the moment when he leaves the court building when there is no record and no means of establishing fact.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, even at court, a defendant may say in not very distinct tones, "I want to see a brief.," or something of that sort, which is unlikely to be recorded in many magistrates' courts in which he might appear?

Mr. Hogg: I am not entirely sure whether I agree with that. If a request is made, albeit in the most informal of


language to the court, the probability is that that request will be acted on either at the behest of the court through the duty solicitor scheme or by some other method.
I am more concerned with the situation when the defendant has left the court room and gone down to the cells. He could then make a request and, under the amendment, there would be no record of it. Therefore, there is a period which is not covered either by an existing record or by an application to the court. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister could amplify that matter.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell(Mid-Bedfordshire): Whether the application has been recorded is not the only question that arises. After all, the purpose of recording whether or when a defendant makes an application for legal advice is to ensure that he or she should get legal advice when it is required. Has the Home Office given its mind to the substance of the problem rather than to the formalities? One of the Bill's difficulties is that it will result in a great deal of paperwork. We are concentrating here on the paperwork side. When a defendant goes to court, it is all very well to say, as my hon. Friend the Minister did, that he is in the custody of the court and therefore it is the court staff who should see that the defendant has access to legal advice, but my experience is that in the courts any prisoner might well be forgiven for not realising whether he is in the custody of the court or of the police. The person whom the prisoner is likely to ask to provide him with legal advice is the police officer.
What is the real justification for that lacuna when one tests it as a matter of practicality? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will go into this in some detail. In the course of his period at the Home Office he will no doubt have had to visit a number of courts and probably the passages and spaces between the prison and the court. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us whether he has had to visit Strangeways where there is, or used to be, a passage between the prison and the court. If the application is made in the course of passing through that passage, at what point does the matter have to be recorded? I see hon. Members laughing, but it is a serious problem, and I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give his views on it.

Mr. Ashby: I acknowledge the points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell). It is an important point despite its amusing aspects. We must realise that the magistrates courts are not courts of record. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) expects that if such a request were made in court it would be noted somewhere, my experience is that whatever is said in court is noted nowhere and that nobody knows what goes on in court. I have had the experience in a magistrates court of calling two or three people from such courts to say what went on only to be given two or three different versions.
We cannot be satisfied about what goes on in the court. There is a gap. It would be easy for my hon. Friend the Minister to speak to the Attorney-General and consider whether the magistrates' courts could not be asked to make a record of any request made in the court. That would be a small amendment and would present no problem.
The court officials have to give written reasons when applications for bail are refused. The change which I envisage would be only an extension of that duty, and it would be quite within the capabilities of a clerk to the

court. This is an important gap and one that should—if I may use a term from the world of advertising—be bridged.

Mr. Giles Shaw: We have had an intellectual debate of the highest order on something which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has described as a significant matter of substance, but which has also been aptly described as that woolly animal, the lacuna.
I can offer some advice to my hon. Friends who are concerned. There are clauses in the Bill which provide for the establishment of custody officers. At long last, the situation is much more precise. So long as the prisoner is in the custody of the police, a direct record will be kept of all that is involved in the progress of his case. The purpose of the custody record is to record the person's treatment while he remains within police custody. As I understand it, once he arrives at the court he moves out of the custody of the police and into direct supervision of the court. The hiatus which worried the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery does not exist. The prisoner moves from one direct form of supervision to another.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) pointed out, the problem is that the court is very lax in the supervision of the details of administration in regard to those within its jurisdiction at any time. That is a matter which I would have to draw to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor if the House wished me to pursue it, because it is not a matter which is directly related to the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the time when the prisoner moves from the court. Surely the prisoner either leaves the court to go back into police custody—in which case the custody officer resumes his duties—or he goes to prison or, presumably, he is put at liberty.

Mr. Hogg: The hiatus arises when the prisoner leaves the court room and, for example, goes downstairs to the cells. He may stay there for a couple of hours. During that time he has not left the court but he has left the court room. That is the hiatus.

Mr. Shaw: I am not as proficient in the matter of law as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, but I assume that, when he goes downstairs, the prisoner remains within the jurisdiction of the court in so far as the court takes responsibility for all that happens within the building. If that is the case, if the prisoner has made a request to see a solicitor, for instance, the court officers should make a record of the fact.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Although when he is in the cells underneath the court room the prisoner is still at a court, he is guarded by the police officers who brought him from the police station and will take him back again. There is no court officer or prison officer there to whom the prisoner could make such a request. He is in police custody, because he has been remanded in police custody from the court room, but he is still at a court. There should be provision for a request to see a solicitor to be recorded if it is made in that situation.

Mr. Shaw: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's clarification. If that is seen to be a serious gap in the provisions about access to lawyers or the maintenance of records, it should be considered and


rectified. However, what we are discussing is the role within the Bill of police custody and its relationship to a person who is, for the purposes of a hearing, already transferred to court. The amendments make it clear that, in that case, no useful purpose would be served by the maintenance of a police log. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has said that there is a gap. It requires observation. I note that and perhaps in the meanwhile the House will agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Lyell: I tried to emphasise that people need legal advice when they get to court. The Bill is designed to protect people when they are kept in custody for a long time but its provisions are irrelevant if a case comes on quickly. In those circumstances, ensuring that people who need legal advice get it is most relevant. There is a gap in the provisions that ensure that people who need legal advice get it and have their requests recorded. My hon. Friend appears not to have dealt with that issue. He says that it will be dealt with by the court. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) have rightly observed that such a person will be in the custody of the police. I appreciate that it is difficult for my hon. Friend the Minister to amend at this stage but perhaps he could have the matter looked into and comment on it briefly now.

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's intervention. The role of the custody officer and the maintenance of a prisoner's contacts and requests should be ordered properly and a log should be kept. I agree that if, on transfer to court, there is a gap in the provision of access or in the recording of requests, the matter is primarily one for the court authority. If it fails to do that, we should have to consider amending the guidance notes that are given to the police, if that would help alleviate the problem. We should examine that after the new provisions have been in practice for some time.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If there be such a gap—I always defer to the legal experience of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—I do not see why the obligation should be put on the police to fill it while defendants are in the custody of the court. Why cannot the court's officer be obliged to make a log?

Mr. Shaw: I think that my hon. Friend is right, in that the prime responsibility is to ensure that the administration of the court is of such a quality that it is able to maintain an accurate record of proceedings. My hon. Friends, most of whom are hon. and learned, are well versed in court procedure and have said that that is far from the case. Apparently courts do not have quite the logical way of going about these things as do the police. Perhaps I might take it as the House's wish that, after experience, if a gap emerges, we might consider amending the code of practice.

Mr. Hogg: The House would be much reassured if my hon. Friend were able to say that the anxiety that has been expressed about what happens in cells after the defendant has left the court room will be brought to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor as magistrates'

courts are in his jurisdiction. It is desirable that there should be some means of recording a request to see a solicitor when it is made in the cells. That is a matter of procedure which has hitherto been overlooked.

Mr. Shaw: I agree that this matter should be drawn to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor but I cannot think of a better envoy than my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 185 to 189 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 190, in page 55, line 1, leave out subsections (19) to (22).

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take amendment No. 191, which involves privilege.

Mr. Shaw: The amendments replace the provisions in clause 56 (19) to (22) relating to legal aid with a new clause. Provision is made for solicitors' clerks to act under the scheme and for those at a police station voluntarily to receive the assistance under the scheme. Other minor drafting amendments are also made.
The amendments transfer the provisions of clause 56 (19) to (22) into a new clause and extend their scope. The provisions deal with the making of arrangements—duty solicitors' schemes—to provide advice and assistance at public expense to persons at police stations, so making fully effective the right to legal advice conferred by clause 56(1). The new clause differs from subsections (19) to (22) in some important respects. First, it provides for solicitors' representatives to be permitted to act under the arrangements where necessary. Second, it extends the scope of the free schemes to those who are at police stations voluntarily as well as those who are there under arrest. That is an important new provision which will help to ensure that there is no grey area between liberty and detention and that persons who are at police stations under caution, but not under arrest, are indeed there voluntarily and not under a form of disguised compulsion.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I hope that the House will warmly endorse the amendments. The Bill has been criticised for being too oppressive, but the amendment is a good example of how the Bill has enlarged the rights of people who are in police custody.
I particularly welcome two aspects mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. First, the amendment enables representatives of solicitors to act under the Legal Aid Act 1982. If advice is always to be available, it is desirable that solicitors' representatives should be permitted to act, because it is not always possible for solicitors to be present. If we are to give full expression to the purpose of legal aid, representatives should be permitted to act.
The even more important advance is that the amendment applies to those who are voluntarily at a police station. It is often said that those who are attending "voluntarily" are under some form of compulsion, but the Government have gone a long way towards ensuring that everyone attending a police station is either under arrest or attending truly voluntarily. In the latter circumstance, legal aid is available and those people can discover their rights. The amendments are a valuable extension to civil rights and the Government deserve our congratulations.

Mr. Lyell: I concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said about the substance of the amendments, but the wording leaves much to be desired. New subsection (1A) in amendment No. 191 consists of 97 words and refers to solicitors designated by reference to other types of solicitors.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify something about the types of solicitors referred to? It will be noted that someone may find a solicitor available and then discover that that solicitor is precluded from giving him advice because he is not a solicitor of the type specifically referred to in the new subsection.
The new clause states:
A scheme under section 15 of the principal Act which relates to advice and representation at magistrates' courts may provide that arrangements made under it may be so framed as to preclude solicitors from providing such advice and representation if they do not also provide advice and assistance in pursuance of arrangements made by virtue of the scheme under that section which relates to the provision of advice and assistance for persons such as are mentioned in section 29 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and for persons arrested and held in cusiody.
It is clear that section 29 refers to people who are arrested other than at police stations. But I hope that my hon. Friend will carefully consider how one is to recognise that the solicitor from whom one wishes to seek advice is or is not one who also provides advice and assistance
in pursuance of arrangements made by virtue of the scheme under that section which relates to the provisions of advice and assistance for persons such as are mentioned in section 29".
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) in his place and perhaps he can give my hon. Friend the Minister some guidance if he does not have a note in front of him. But it would seem that there are considerable practical difficulties in placing this restriction. If my hon. Friend the Minister can explain how one identifies whether the solicitor available is entitled to give advice under this rather complex section, I should be grateful if he could then explain what rationale precludes a solicitor who is not prepared to give advice to those not arrested at police stations from giving advice under subsection (1A). Normally, amendments from the other place are very carefully thought out, and I therefore accept that there may be a sound rationale. Indeed, I look in the direction from which it might be forthcoming. However, at present I find it difficult to understand what it is. Perhaps other hon. Members can help. But failing that I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could enlighten me before the provision is enacted.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The main point at issue is, of course, the range of solicitors from which the prisoner may choose to take legal advice at the point at which he continues in police custody. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) is right to say that that brings into play the question of the legal profession's range of services which are available to the prisoner at any given time. Perhaps I can couch my answer in terms of the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme, as that represents for most people the most effective way of obtaining legal advice that they wish to have, and for which—under clause 56—we are making provision.
Some doubts have been raised about the extent of the Government's commitments to the successful operation of duty solicitor schemes, but the facts simply do not bear that out. The provision contained in clause 58 providing a statutory right to legal advice for those arrested and held in custody, reinforced by the extensions of rights to advice

contained in the statutory code of practice, represent an important consolidation of the existing position, and an improvement upon it.
The Government have recognised that there would be considerable difficulty in attempting to make the rights as newly set out in the Bill effective using the existing legal aid provisions, since advice will need to be quickly and simply available throughout the 24 hours of the day. We have therefore attempted to assist the legal profession to meet the new demands on its resources—my hon. and learned Friend was right to say that by virtue of the provision there will be increased demands upon it—by explicitly extending the Law Society's powers to enable it to make specific arrangements for duty solicitor schemes, and giving the committees that will administer them a discretion to link membership with the existing schemes at magistrates' courts to help with manpower.
9.30 pm
Considerable changes have been made in the usual requirements on the financial limits for eligibility and liability to contribute because of the special circumstances in which the advice will be sought. Additional financial provision has already been made in forward estimates towards the likely cost of the schemes. The Government have demonstrated their willingness to respond to helpful criticism by amending the original form of the legislation to enable the schemes to provide fully for those who are not under arrest.
My hon. and learned Friend should be reassured that the changes to the duty schemes and the provisions made with the Law Society's agreement go a long way towards providing the legal support and aid for persons in detention which is the bedrock of this clause.

Mr. Lyell: I thank the Minister for that answer, which clarifies the position. Am I right to espy what might be described as beneficent restrictive practice?
I shall not elaborate at too much length, but it seems clear that those solicitors who take the trouble to provide the 24-hour service will have reserved for them the right to give advice which people need during that period and that other solicitors who happen to be around will not be able to benefit. That seems to be the rationale of the scheme——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We seem to be suffering from a number of long interventions. I remind the House that interventions must be brief and that hon. Members cannot speak twice in these debates.

Mr. Lyell: Of course I shall pay great attention to what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be brief. Is the object to restrict the provision of advice in such cases to those solicitors who provide the 24-hour service?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend has gone wide of the mark because what we are discussing in the amendment is the participation in the magistrates courts of the duty solicitors scheme being a condition of the solicitors participation in the police station scheme. The two are interlinked in that way. I hope that that clarifies the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 191 agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 59

INTIMATE SAMPLES

Lords amendment: No. 192, in page 57, line 39, at end insert—
() Where the appropriate consent to the taking of an intimate sample from a person was refused without good cause, in any proceedings against that person for an offence—

(a) the court, in determining—

(i) whether to commit that person for trial; or
(ii) whether there is a case to answer; and
(b) the court or jury, in determining whether that person is guilty of the offence charged,
may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper; and the refusal may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence against the person in relation to which the refusal is material."

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is important. It allows a refusal to give an intimate sample to be used by the prosecution as the basis from which inferences can be drawn, those inferences to be capable to amounting to corroboration.
Hon. Members will, I trust, forgive me if I explain at some length the rationale behind this amendment to a clause which deals with a sensitive and difficult subject—the taking of intimate samples. At present, refusal to provide an intimate sample may, if it has been possible to bring a case before the court, be referred to as part of the prosecution evidence. If the defendant exercises his right not to give evidence at the trial that is all that can be said. Even if he does give evidence and is cross-examined on why he refused, the prosecution has to recognise that he is entitled to refuse.
Hon. Members will recall that it was agreed by the House that the present position should be altered by providing that consent to the taking of an intimate sample must be in writing in accordance with one of the main objectives of the Bill, which is to move towards carefully recorded investigations and more formal opportunities for the accused person to exercise his rights. But the requirement for written consent creates the difficulty that it may encourage the guilty to refuse, secure in the knowledge that if they are eventually brought to trial they will be at no disadvantage for having refused to cooperate. Hon. Members will know that it is often in relation to offences of the greatest gravity, of which rape or sexual assault on a child are obvious examples, that the evidence obtained from an intimate sample is most likely to be relevant.
The problem is how to ensure, so far as can be done by acceptable means, that refusal of consent does not give the guilty a virtual immunity from prosecution where the case requires evidence of that sort. The House will recall that when that was discussed in Committee there was wide support from all parties for a provision suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that refusal to give a sample without good cause should be capable of corroborating the prosecution case. That is exactly what the amendment provides, as agreed to in another place. That means that it would be for the jury to determine the weight to attach to a refusal, which we believe is the best way of providing for the wide variety of motives—some, of course, wholly innocent—which might be behind a refusal to provide an intimate sample.
The person asked for an intimate sample might be drunk and belligerent, or he might simply be afraid of the process.
If that were explained at any subsequent trial, the jury might attach little significance to the refusal. On the other hand, where it was thought that the suspect refused because he had something to hide, the jury would be allowed to take the refusal into account as evidence against him.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is there any requirement in either the Bill or the amendment that police officers should draw to the attention of the defendant the fact that a failure to give written consent could amount to corroboration?

Mr. Shaw: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question now, but will do so in due course.
I should explain to hon. Members why the amendment refers in particular to the refusal to corroborate the prosecution case. As hon. Members will know, in general the English law does not require corroboration; if testimony is given by a single witness who is believed, that is generally sufficient. In all trials for sexual offences, however, which as I have said are amongst those where, typically, evidence from an intimate sample may be crucial, the judge is obliged to warn the jury that it is unsafe to convict solely on the evidence of the complainant. If the complainant's evidence is not corroborated, a charge of rape, for example, may well fail.
In those circumstances, it seemed to the Committee of this House, and to the Committee in another place, important that it should be open to the jury, if it thinks fit, to attach virtually the same weight to the refusal as it would to evidence from an intimate sample that directly implicated the defendant. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.

Mr. Ashby: We have come a long way in this clause. In the early 1960s, when I was first called to the Bar, we had drunken driving offences. The new breathaliser laws were introduced by Barbara Castle, and I remember the uproar throughout the country because someone was being forced to give evidence against himself, which was contrary to the law as we knew it. Any refusal to give a sample was construed in the same way as this amendment will be construed—against the defendant. It was justified because there was a great deal of drinking and driving that resulted in accidents and deaths. It was thought to be a motoring offence rather than a serious offence that would involve the liberty of the subject.
This clause is to be used for criminal, not driving, offences and therefore involves the liberty of the subject. Hitherto, people had been allowed the right to silence. Hitherto, a defendant had been allowed to say to a police officer, "You make these allegations against me, so you must prove them." Now the police officer can say, "We want to take a sample from you and if you refuse to give one that can be taken as evidence against you and the jury can consider that evidence."

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has made an important statement—that a police officer can tell the defendant that a refusal wall constitute corroborative evidence against him. I was searching for that provision in the Bill, and if my hon. Friend can find it, that would be a great help.

Mr. Ashby: The provision is not in the Bill. My hon. Friend raised a point with my hon. Friend the Minister


earlier about an officer warning a motorist that refusal to give a sample could result in that being used as evidence against the motorist, but that point does not appear in the Bill. However, it is contained in a printed form which police officers have as part of their administrative duties. The form sets out the formula through which they have to go when somebody is breathalysed under the Road Traffic Acts. I foresee that, as a result of the Bill, the form that the police use at the station will be a complex but readily understood document that will go from one stage to the next. I hope that it will contain some formula along the lines of the station sheet for motoring offences. The arrested person will have to give a sample, but if he does not it will be construed as evidence against him.
That is the simple way to do it and I expect that the Home Office will produce such a document. Legislation is not needed for such a form, but I hope that one will be incorporated. There must be a personal station sheet that will have such directions for the police officer, custody officer or whoever is responsible. The officer will be able to go through the formula from one stage to the next, so no mistakes will be made. There has been much talk about the complexities of this Act, but I think that in practice there will not be so many complexities if the Home Office considers carefully, as no doubt it will, the way to provide the best kind of station sheet, and one that will be uniform for everyone.
We are taking a serious step with this clause. It touches on a fundamental point to do with the way in which British justice is administered. No man should have to give evidence against himself. Some of the offshoots of British law, such as American law, enshrine such a right in the constitution. If this clause were enacted in the United States of America, there would be a furore.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is not my hon. Friend in a dilemma? On the one hand he said that this is a profound move that greatly diminishes the rights of the individual, while on the other hand he says that it is sufficient, by a procedural device, to introduce the principle that refusal to give a sample will be corroborative evidence. If there is such a profound change, should there not be a statutory requirement, if not in this Act at a later stage, to bring to the notice of a defendant the fact that refusal will be used as corroborative evidence?

Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend should be addressing that question to the Minister, and I am not the Minister. If it was considered in 1967 that such a provision did not require a legislative basis, there will not be any more need for it in 1984 when we have seen so much erosion of our rights and civil liberties. It is now becoming accepted practice that failure to give evidence can be taken as evidence against someone. I suppose that I must accept that at the end of the day, but I hope that the House will be fully aware of what it is being asked to accept. It must understand that it is being asked fundamentally to change the criminal law.

Mr. Michael Howard: Does my hon. Friend think that justice is the more likely to be done if the amendment is agreed to or if the existing law continues?

Mr. Ashby: I accept the amendment, but if the House is to accept it, it must do so with its eyes open.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The amendment represents an important change in the law and it is one which I welcome, subject to the proviso that I have just made to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. In the generality of cases, intimate samples will be taken only when the person concerned is accused of a serious offence; for example, rape. We have been reminded that the consent must be in writing. It would be intolerable if a suspected person could frustrate the process of the law by refusing to give consent without there being any sanction attached to that refusal. It would be especially intolerable in cases such as rape, where there are frequently very few witnesses, and sometimes only the complainant, and, as a matter of principle, the complainant's evidence must be corroborated.
Once the requirement of consent is introduced the individual is being given the opportunity, unless we accept the amendment, of frustrating the main thrust of the Bill. Therefore, I welcome the proposition that a refusal to give consent should be treated as corroborative evidence. That is extremely sensible. I for one have never believed in the rule of silence. If a defendant refuses to give evidence, that, too, should be corroborative.
I am concerned that there is nothing in the Bill or the amendment to bring this important exception to the individual's attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) knows all about the 1967 legislation, but not everyone who appears in a police station has that knowledge. Moreover, my hon. Friend relies on the pro forma document, but those who appear in police stations are often confused, drunk or in some other way incapable. I would not expect them to read the pro forma document, and in the confusion of the moment the police officer might not make the requirement absolutely clear.
If we are to change the law in such a marked way, the consequences of not giving consent should be brought to the attention of the person required to give it. I am not going to stand in the way of the passage of the amendment, but I shall be greatly comforted if the Minister will say that he regards my point as important, that he will reflect upon it and that if necessary he will consider what legislative steps can be taken in another place or on another occasion to meet it.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend has told us that he has never believed in the rule of silence. I must welcome his voice back to the Chamber, he having drifted in and out of Hades. Now that he is no longer a Whip, he is making substantial contributions to our debates.
My hon. Friend is saying that there must be more provision in the Bill to warn someone that corroboration might be created if he refuses to consent to give a sample. Is he not tilting at a windmill? A person must be warned if it is an offence to refuse to give a sample, as in the drink-driving legislation. The amendment states:
Where the appropriate consent to the taking of an intimate sample from a person was refused without good cause".
Surely it would be the best possible cause for establishing grounds for a refusal if an ignorant person were not told that if he refused to give the sample some harm might befall him. Furthermore, the amendment goes on to say, not that that refusal is an offence, but that the court
may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper".


Is there not, on the face of the amendment, an adequate deterrent to a charge being based upon the failure to allow the intimate search, when it is clear that such a charge will not prevail because of the absence of good cause and because of the court's discretion to deal with the matter as is proper in all the circumstances?

Mr. Hogg: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his kind offering.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has addressed the House once on this subject. He cannot do so twice.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Deputy Speaker, that was an intervention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that was an intervention, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will not inflict a speech on the House. More than once tonight, I have reminded hon. Members that interventions have been overlong. I had assumed that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) had concluded his remarks.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I specifically gave way to an intervention. I was on my feet and I gave way.

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to apologise for delivering what you thought was a speech. Often my interventions are much longer than my speeches, and I profoundly apologise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept the hon. and learned Member's apology. I shall, however, certainly bear his remarks in mind when he seeks to catch my eye in the future.

Mr. Hogg: That sounds remarkably like a threat. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his kind words to welcome me back. His point has much force, but I counter it by saying that if we introduce a piece of legislation which imposes penal consequences—however the amendment is viewed, it imposes a penal consequence because it gives rise to the existence of corroborative evidence where there previously was none—then, as a matter of principle and of justice, the consequences of the omission must be brought to the attention of the person who is asked to provide consent. That is desirable, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will reflect on what has been said on this issue.

Mr. Derek Spencer: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made an intervention which appeared to be a speech. If I make a speech which appears to be an intervention, I hope that there will not be any objections.
I am surprised at how long the defendant's right to obstruct the course of justice by refusing to provide an intimate sample has survived in our law. I think that any outside observer would be amazed to learn that that measure has not been laid to rest before now. I therefore welcome the amendment. Although my hon. Friend the Minister of State appears to be impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), I hope that, on more mature reflection, he will not allow himself to be persuaded by them.
If we accept my hon. Friend's suggestion and reach the stage where a defendant has to be warned that failure to supply an intimate sample is capable of being regarded as corroboration, where does the argument stop? In justice,

should the defendant not be warned also that if he tells a deliberate lie that is capable of being corrobation? Should he not be dissuaded from indulging in all sorts of other conduct which under present law is capable of being regarded as corroboration? On mature reflection, my hon. Friend the Minister may come to the conclusion that the amendment as drafted amounts to sufficient justice and may be well advised to leave it exactly where it is.

Mr. Giles Shaw: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I respond to the cogent point of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) with support from other of my hon. Friends?
I make no apology for describing the amendment as important. The debate has made that abundantly clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham asked whether the person from whom the sample was requested was to be informed of the possibility that a refusal would be put in evidence. That is not plain on the face of the Bill, as my hon. Friend pointed out. I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. We intend to include this reference in the next draft of the code of practice. It will require the police to warn a suspect of the consequences of refusal.
The suggestion that a warning be prescribed came not just from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham but from the Lambeth police community consultative group which has made a substantial and praiseworthy contribution to the improvement of the Bill. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks, and I assure the House that if it accepts the amendment, as I trust it will, it will be accompanied by at least a definition that the corroborative quality of the refusal will be notified to the person making it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 193 to 196 agreed to.

Clause 63

CODES OF PRACTICE

Lords amendment: No. 197, in page 60, line 27, leave out from "with" to "the" in line 29 and insert—

"(a) the exercise by police officers of statutory powers—

(i) to search a person without first arresting him; or
(ii) to search a vehicle without making an arrest;
(b) the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons by police officers;
(c) searches of premises by police officers; and
(d)"

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 198 to 206.

Mr. Shaw: The principal amendment in this group provides for the issue of a code of practice governing the use of powers of stop and search. The case for such a code was argued persuasively on Report, and in deciding to amend the Bill we are impressed by the wish of the police to have a code of practice. We debated the importance of the stop and search powers earlier, and I am sure that the House would wish to agree with the Lords in the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 198 to 207 agreed to.

Clause 69

PART VII—SUPPLEMENTARY

Lords amendment: No. 208, in page 63, line 18, after second "1955" insert—
(aa) proceedings in the United Kingdom or elsewhere before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court—

(i) on an appeal from a court-martial so constituted or from a court-martial constituted under the Naval Discipline Act 1957; or
(ii) on a reference under section 34 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968;"

Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 216, 306 to 311, 346, 351, 353 and 354.

Mr. Shaw: The amendments are technical and relate solely to the application of the Bill to the armed services. They ensure that the definition of criminal proceedings includes proceedings before the Court Martial Appeal Court as well as courts martial, and make minor adjustments to the extent of the provisions relating to service offences.

Question put and agreed to.

Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

To be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Social Security Office, Newcastle

Motion made, and question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel Jones.]

10 pm

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the effects being felt by the recipients of benefit as a result of the current industrial dispute at the DHSS centre at Newcastle. Since I intend to concentrate on the national impact of the strike, it would be churlish and wrong to deny the local Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), an opportunity to intervene in this brief debate if he sought to do so and was lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am aware that the Minister will have to tread with trepidation and be extremely careful about how he words any remarks of his in response to the debate. I understand that the current negotiations between the Department and the two unions, the Civil and Public Services Association and the Society of Civil and Public Servants, are adjourned. Although a date has not been fixed for the resumption of the negotiations, I am confident that there is still an opportunity to resolve the dispute by negotiation, and certainly that is the solution sought by right hon. and hon. Members on the Liberal Bench.
I wrote to the Minister on 12 October asking a series of questions. I do not want to elaborate too much on the difficulties of the current negotiations, because they are extremely delicate. However, some elaboration of them would help, since I for one have found it difficult to make a judgment of the issues involved because of the failure to make much of the information public. This is the first chance that the Minister will have had, at least in debate, to air some of the issues, and in this debate I ask him to address his mind to a couple of the questions that I put to him in my letter. If he feels that he cannot deal with them tonight, perhaps he will be prepared to do so in due course by a written answer or in reply to my letter.
I have visited the strike centre and, although I was not there for long, it appeared to me that these were ordinary people who were worried about their working conditions. There was no evidence that I could see of any Left-wing militancy or of any other influences. It seemed to me to be a perfectly straightforward dispute.
One of the questions raised with me during my visit and one that requires an answer is why the Government set about their reorganisation on the basis of an organisation and methods report which did not involve the trade unions in its compilation. That seems to be the industrial relations of the Stone Age. If important and swingeing changes in work procedures are to be introduced, it is quite wrong that the report from which they stem should not involve the trade unions at an early stage.
I know that the details are complicated, but I should be obliged if the Minister would confirm that the new shift system, as well as having the potential of reducing shift allowances, interferes with the possibility of shift workers anticipating their work schedules week on week for the future. In the one-in-three shift system it is possible for a shift worker to say when he will be at work and when he will not be. I understand that in a one-in-five shift system it is impossible for him to say what shifts in the near future he will be asked to work.
I have not seen the Government's response to the union's claim that there are other ways of making substantial savings—almost the £700,000 that the Minister is looking for with his shift rota changes. The unions seem to think that they can save £610,000 by making savings outside the proposed changes in the shift allowance. Before trying to make any objective judgment I should like to hear the Government's view. These are fairly low-paid workers, and if there were a change in the shift allowance it would require a reduction in the wage packets of some of them of about £10 to £14 a week. That is a considerable sum in their terms.
There is confusion in regard to the cost to the public purse, which is an important factor in the dispute. The official spokesman for the Opposition, with his characteristic hyperbole, suggested that the dispute was costing £100 million a year. I do not know whether that is a correct figure. He said that it had cost £43 million to date and that it would continue to cost a further £2 million a week.
Apart form the cost of the additional post office staff, there must be additional overtime and bonus payments to the DHSS staff at Newcastle. The cost must be extensive, although I am prepared to believe that it is a good deal less than £100 million. The Minister is hoping to make savings. If one believes the union, the figure is about £50,000; according to the Department, it is about £700,000. The saving is relatively small in relation to the large sums of money being spent in the course of a long and intractable dispute.
The dispute started in November 1983. As soon as the organisation and management report was produced, there was a work to rule, and a full strike began on 14 May 1984. Clearly, the Government have been guilty, prima facie, of ham-fisted industrial relations. However, I do not know the details and I accept that it may be sensible for the Minister to reply at a later stage to the points raised.
The social services correspondent of The Guardian estimates that it may take until the year 2014 before there are any savings to be made over and above the additional costs, if the dispute is not ended soon.
The effect of the dispute on the Post Office was made clear to all hon. Members in a letter dated 9 October from the managing director of the counter services of the Post Office. He made several cogent points to which I should like to refer. The Post Office, whom I consulted today on the matter, said that the current price for the emergency payment for each stamp has not yet been negotiated between the Post Office and the DHSS. Some press reports say that the price is 38p and some say it is 50p. The Post Office, if I understood correctly this afternoon, said that the fee had not yet been negotiated. Therefore, it may well be that the Government do not yet know what the cost will prove to be in the fullness of time.
There are 20,600 post offices and at the end of last week they were processing manually 4·65 million pension books. That is producing intolerable strains on the post office network. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Post Office is required to take action to keep on stream some of the sub-post offices and other Crown offices that it was intended to close. The Post Office is now having to go back to sub-postmasters and others and ask them to stay on until they can cope with the damage caused by the dispute. I am in favour of keeping sub-post offices open but not in the way that the Government are operating.
I was told by the Post Office that, even if the dispute were to be resolved tomorrow, it would take until February 1986 before the mess was sorted out at the post office level. That is a very long time.
The most worrying aspect is the effect on the people who are suffering as a result of the dispute. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the dispute is affecting retirement pensions, national insurance, widows' benefit, child benefit, and child special allowance. The worst effects are being felt by people in those categories, particularly in relation to the procedures for claiming pensions for those who are overseas, ill or on holiday.
The Government have undertaken a fairly extensive campaign of press advertising, and I agree that it was the only way to handle the situation in the prevailing circumstances.
I have had correspondence in my postbag, particularly from Scotland—I am sure that other hon. Members have heard similar stories—about the difficulties and distress caused by some of the emergency procedures. That is happening willy nilly. It is inevitable that if we operate emergency procedures there will be difficulties. I am told by Age Concern that some pensioners have not received benefits for many weeks. I have not been able to corroborate any cases myself, but there are difficulties. I am told that in Scotland about 3,500 new pensioners are also in difficulties because they must go through the emergency procedure of going to the DHSS office. Even some dead pensioners are still getting books. All those anomalies and difficulties are being thrown up as a result of the manual emergency payment procedure.
The real difficulty is that only one payment per week can be made through the emergency procedure so that people who have been accustomed to storing up three or four payments and collecting them every month are no longer able to do so while the strike continues. That is causing a great deal of distress and hardship. Evidence of that has been sent to me through my constituency and contacts up and down the country as I am the spokeman for my party.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree with all the points that he has raised so far. I also thank him for raising this important matter on the Adjournment.
The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the hardship that the dispute is causing. I should like to make a point on behalf of the constituents whom I represent, as the dispute is taking place in my constituency. It was caused by a management review of the shift working of computer operators at Washington and Longbenton, the Newcastle branch of the DHSS. It particularly affected the automatic process workers. The key recommendations of the management review are contained in paragraph 24 of its very full report. The crux of the recommendations was that the shift times be altered, particularly so that the computer operators finished before 12·30. That has a peculiar effect on Civil Service terms and conditions—it claws back part of the bonus that forms part of the remuneration of the employees. I should like to give the House an example of what that would mean in practice to a constituent of mine. A junior data processor who is paid £120 a week top line—his gross wage—would suffer a reduction by 9·5 per


cent. to £110·50. My constituents, not unreasonably, and like everybody else in the world, do not want to take a reduction in their wages.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I have visited the workers at the strike centre. They are not on high wages or a group of people noted for their industrial militancy. Some have told me rather bitterly that they voted Conservative at the last election and will not do so again. They do not want to cause all the difficulties that are being caused by the dispute. They feel strongly that they want to help pensioners and those in receipt of child benefit, but—this is the crucial point—they do not want to take a wage cut. The industrial action that they are taking is symptomatic of the increasing resentment and desperation that are being felt not just by the workers at Longbenton but by the whole community in the north-east of England. They feel that their community is being killed off by several aspects of Government policy and that the Government's behaviour is mean and irrational.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for that constructive intervention, which adds positively to my argument.
The purpose of the debate for all Opposition Members is basically to seek two assurances from the Minister. First, will he give a categorical assurance that the upratings due on 26 November will be paid in full, on time and with precision? The whole country needs that assurance and should accept nothing less. Secondly, will the Minister take charge of the negotiations as soon as possible, personally if need be, to bring this intractable dispute to a speedy conclusion?

The Minister of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) not just for choosing this important subject for debate but perhaps even more, in the present circumstances, for the very moderate, reasonable and sensible way in which he recognised the difficulties that I face while negotiations are going on.
There is no doubt that this is an important matter which has given rise to a good deal of anxiety among pensioners. If nothing else, today's debate gives me the opportunity to convey to the two hon. Members who have spoken and to the House in general the best assurance that I can give—that we expect the uprating to be carried out on time and accurately in the vast majority of cases. Clearly I cannot give a 100 per cent. guarantee about this uprating or indeed any uprating because the size of the problem means that there are bound to be errors in almost any circumstances. Nevertheless, we are confident that for the vast majority the uprating will be accurate and on time.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: And the Christmas bonus.

Mr. Newton: And the Christmas bonus. I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
Before dealing with the specific details of the uprating, it is appropriate for me to say something about the background to the dispute, although my comments will naturally be cautious in the context of the current negotiations.
As has been pointed out, the dispute arose due to management plans to change the shift working arrangements in the computer operations area so as to improve efficiency, make better use of equipment and meet current and emerging operational requirements. The need for change was brought to notice in a report by a routine internal audit which questioned the arrangements which then existed. In response to the auditor's questioning, management initiated a review which found that the arrangements that had been in operation since the early 1970s were no longer appropriate to current operational needs. At this stage, I merely say that, in my view, no responsible Government could or should ignore evidence that such an important complex in the social security system was not being run as efficiently and economically as possible.
Briefly, the proposed changes involved the introduction in some areas of a rotating night shift to meet changing operational requirements arising, for example, from the increasing number of pensioners and to do so in a way which made the fullest use of very expensive computer equipment. In other areas, an existing night shift which had proved unnecessary in the light of experience with new equipment would be discontinued. Some shift starting and finishing times would also be adjusted so as to end the situation in which staff on evening shifts receive a full night shift allowance although working only until shortly after 12.30 am.
The total effect of the changes would be to save the taxpayer an estimated £700,000 per year as well as ensuring a fully efficient service to beneficiaries. Those savings would derive from three main elements. The work would be done by fewer staff, expensive overtime working would be eliminated in some areas and reduced in others—an objective that we share with the unions—and there would be less expenditure on shift allowances.
On the subject of union involvement at the outset, I should add that there are procedures governing this. They involved notification to the unions that the examination by the management services people was to begin and copies of the report were supplied to the unions before any communication was made to the individual staff involved. That was both sensible and fulfilled our obligations.
We commenced negotiations with the unions in January this year. They were continuing when the unions broke them off and called for a strike from 14 May. The numbers on strike have varied a little over the intervening period, but there are currently 379 of the computer operations staff in the shift working areas on strike, together with 114 staff who are in associated areas but not affected directly by the shift working proposals. To put that into perspective, that total of fewer than 500 is only a tiny minority of the overall staff at Newcastle central office which numbers some 10,500 in all.
I can tell the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), that we have always been aware that for a small minority of the shift workers the changes would mean, other things being equal, a loss of take-home pay. Throughout we have been anxious to negotiate transitional arrangements which would safeguard those shift workers' earnings. The offer that has been on the table for months means that no existing shift worker who accepted the new arrangements need lose any take-home pay. I cannot emphasise that too strongly. We are and have been


concerned about the position of our staff and shift workers need not lose any take-home pay as a result of our proposals.
Indeed, in our efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement we have always been more than willing to talk to the unions. Perhaps the most striking evidence of that was the previously unprecedented step in the Civil Service of involving the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service when our officials spent some 15 hours attempting to find a way to settle the dispute.
Those proposals which have been on the table for many months concerning transitional protection, the need for which we have consistently recognised, go significantly further than the existing negotiated arrangements nationally for transitional protection in such circumstances. I do not accept that management and Ministers have been intransigent either in what we have offered or in the way in which we have been willing to talk, in particular by being willing to accept conciliation through ACAS.
We have reaffirmed our willingness to resume negotiations on many occasions since the ACAS discussions. We have demonstrated that again by our response to the unions' recent request for further talks. Those negotiations started yesterday, as has been recognised, and are continuing. Therefore, the House will understand that in the circumstances it is not right to say more tonight about the points which are themselves issued in those negotiations.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to costs. It is difficult at the moment to be sure about precisely what the costs are, for reasons which he touched on. First, the exact arrangements with the Post Office for the emergency arrangements remain to be fully negotiated. Therefore, I cannot be certain what those costs will be. Secondly, quite a lot of overtime is being worked. One of the ironies of the dispute is that the pay of DHSS staff is operated by the computers which are not operating—indeed, the pay of DHSS Ministers as well. Because the computer is not working normally we have had to make emergency arrangements for pay and therefore we are also in a difficult position to estimate precisely the cost of the dispute. There are inescapable uncertainties. I can only say that on the best estimates that we can make at the moment the figure of £100 million which has been quoted is about three times higher than what we would estimate.

Sir John Page: I apologise for not being here for the beginning of my hon. Friend's speech, but I was otherwise engaged. If by any chance those who are paying themselves what they hope is too little are paying themselves too much, will the Minister be gentle in asking them to pay back what they have overpaid themselves over, say, six months or a year? I know that this is a matter of great concern to DHSS employees who are having to assess themselves.

Mr. Newton: I hope that I shall not find myself in that position. We shall wish to be as helpful as possible in dealing with any difficulties which may emerge after the dispute. We would need to deal with the matter case by case. However, I believe that our handling of the dispute has been very reasonable, and I can assure my hon. Friend

that we would seek to be reasonable in any such problems which may affect our own staff, or indeed social security beneficiaries, in the afterrnath of the dispute.
Even if the dispute ended now, it would be long past the stage when the uprating could be carried out by normal methods. I shall explain how the main categories concerned will be dealt with.
There are 7 million pensioners and 7 million recipients of child benefit whose payments are normally made by order book issued from Newcastle, and who are currently being paid by the Post Office on the stub of an expired order book. For those cases, new covers have been prepared showing the new rates coming into operation during the week beginning 26 November. Those covers have all been printed. Most of them have been enveloped, and they will be sent out to post offices and attached to the stubs of the old books between now and mid-November. Anyone who holds the stub of an old order book which does not show the new rate and had not has a new cover attached to it by 19 November should get in touch with the local DHSS office. Those arrangements are being publicised by advertisements in the press and posters in post offices. Hon. Members may have seen the first advertisements which appeared just over a week ago.
Secondly, there are 1·6 million supplementary pensioners paid on order books issued manually by local DHSS offices. They will continue to get their new books in the normal way, and in their case the uprating will proceed as usual. We have been able to issue the necessary information from Newcastle to make sure that the retirement pension element of their payments can be accurately calculated.
Thirdly, there is a substantial group of beneficiaries who are paid either by automatic credit transfer through the banks or by payable orders sent out from Newcastle. There are about 600,000 to 700,000 on ACT, about 430,000 on payable orders in Britain and about another 300,000 overseas. Those are the cases for which it is most difficult for us to make adequate emergency arrangements, because we have had no reliable means of identifying the beneficiaries being paid by that means.
We remain confident that in most cases we will be able to carry out the uprating: effectively. Most of the pensioners involved have been in touch with us, and we have been paying about four fifths of the pensioners in this country and a similar proportion of those abroad by manual means from Newcastle. Of those, all who are entitled to an uprating increase will receive it on time, and I hope that by the time the uprating is due we shall have been able to identify from the computer the remainder of those who have not yet been in touch with us direct and thus put the emergency procedures into operation for them. If we are successful in identifying the remainder, they too will get the uprating increase due to them, together with the benefit owing to them since the dispute started. Similarly, we hope to be able to make the necessary arrangements for those on automatic credit transfer. At the same time, I hope to be able to eliminate those distressing cases where payment has continued automatically from banks to pensioners who have died.
There has been much interest in the payment of the Christmas bonus. We expect that this, too, will be paid on time, in the first week of December, in the vast majority of cases. Locally issued order books will contain the appropriate voucher. For stub payments—the re-covered


Newcastle books—the post offices will pay out an additional £10 that week, and £10 will be added to the payable orders or ACT payments relating to that period.
Although there have been difficulties, a remarkable job has been done by the vast majority of DHSS staff both in coping with the emergency arrangements and in making sure that the uprating should proceed successfully. I hope

that the whole House will join me in expressing our heartfelt thanks for the dedicated work of the vast majority of officials at Newcastle and the tens of thousands of DHSS officials in local offices who have done a first-class job in very difficult circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.